ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Retail Sector

Ann Coffey: What recent meetings he has had with representatives of the retail sector.

Michael Fallon: I regularly meet representatives of the retail sector. I attend the retail policy forum, which meets three times a year, and I recently spoke at the Association of Convenience Stores’ heart of the community conference. As part of small business Saturday, I will visit independent shops in Westerham this weekend and I encourage all colleagues to support this hugely important campaign.

Ann Coffey: The rise in e-commerce and online sales is changing our shopping habits and impacting on our high streets. What more can the Minister do to encourage co-operation between big retailers, independent retailers and councils to take advantage of the opportunities offered by developing technology to transform our high streets into exciting community spaces for the 21st century?

Michael Fallon: I agree with the hon. Lady about the huge opportunity here. We are keen to help small businesses in particular to trade online. With the help of my Department, Go ON UK is piloting a programme to help to provide businesses with the skills to transact online, including using mobile technologies to exploit the increasing use of smartphones in e-commerce. That will roll out nationally next spring. The Technology Strategy Board carried out a successful digital high street pilot last year in Hereford and it is currently exploring how to build on that.

James Gray: I, too, will be out and about in Calne, Royal Wotton Bassett and Malmesbury on small business Saturday, supporting our small retailers. Does the Minister agree that one of the biggest burdens I will hear about as I wander around will be the overwhelming burden of business rates on small businesses? What action can he take now to lessen that appalling burden?

Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend will know that we have doubled small business rate relief and have already extended it until 2014. On our plans after that, I must ask him to be patient a little longer.

Stephen Mosley: Chester has been a fantastic shopping centre for centuries, but it faces increased competition from online shopping and out-of-town shopping centres. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these days we have to make shopping an entertainment experience, with cafes, bars and on-street entertainment to drag people back on to the high street?

Michael Fallon: Yes, I do agree. As the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) put it, we have to make high streets community spaces again that are not simply for transactional shopping. There are a number of ways in which high streets can respond to the challenge of e-commerce and the Government are here to help.

Small Business Sector

Henry Bellingham: If he will meet representatives of the small business sector to discuss the removal of unnecessary regulation.

Matthew Hancock: I am very happy to meet small business representatives. We actively listen to feedback on regulation, including through the red tape challenge, but we do not just meet representatives—we act. For instance, we are freeing about 1 million self-employed people from health and safety law where their work poses no harm to others.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that King’s Lynn and west Norfolk has an incredibly diverse economy? Experts tell me that since 2010, 1,000 new small businesses have been set up. Will he tell the House that he is as determined as ever to go on championing the cause of removing unnecessary burdens on business, and does he agree that small businesses will be the major exporters of the future? What will he be doing on Saturday to champion wealth creation and enterprise?

Matthew Hancock: Like my hon. Friend and many Members across the House, I will be celebrating small business Saturday this weekend. We are constantly vigilant and listening to small businesses to make sure that their task is made easier and the burdens we place on them made smaller.

Barry Sheerman: If the Minister is in listening mode and cares so much about regulation, will he look very carefully at the threat to crowdfunding, which is a real alternative for small business and community group start-ups? The Financial Conduct Authority is conducting an inquiry and consultation. If we get this wrong and implement inappropriate regulation, it will kill something wonderful that can regenerate communities and business.

Matthew Hancock: I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman says. We are supporting crowdfunding on financial terms, not least through the new business bank, but we are also making sure that it can operate in a high-quality framework. The fact that there will be a regulatory framework around crowd-sourced funding
	has been welcomed by the sector. We have to get it right, and I will meet Martin Wheatley of the FCA to make sure that we get the details right.

David Nuttall: Some of the most burdensome regulations on manufacturing companies in my constituency are the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals regulations imposed by Brussels. Will the Minister undertake to work across Government to do all he can to reduce the burden of these REACH regulations?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, the REACH regulations are among the 30 recently highlighted by the EU business taskforce. As my hon. Friend knows, we are working hard to reduce the burden of those regulations.

Small Businesses

Anne McIntosh: What steps he is taking to support small businesses.

John Howell: What steps he is taking to support small businesses.

Jason McCartney: What steps he is taking to support small businesses.

Vincent Cable: We are doing more than ever to support small business. More than 10,000 StartUp loans have been drawn down since the scheme’s launch in September 2012. Over the past year, UK Trade & Investment has helped 32,000 businesses to export, the growth accelerator scheme has supported 10,000 small businesses and the regional growth fund has helped a further 3,200.

Anne McIntosh: I shall support small businesses in Helmsley this Saturday. Will the Secretary of State use his good offices to encourage the local enterprise partnership for north Yorkshire to make funds available to improve the A64 corridor, because its safety record and its terrible congestion is holding back growth for all businesses along its route?

Vincent Cable: I will certainly make sure that the local enterprise partnership is aware of my hon. Friend’s priorities. In relation to small business Saturday, I praise the activities that she is undertaking in Helmsley. That council is one of 25 that will offer free parking that day, and I hope that a few more will sign up to that in the next 48 hours. I shall be in Twickenham to support my small businesses.

John Howell: I will support small business Saturday by literally putting small businesses in my constituency on the map on my website. What will the Secretary of State do to improve access to finance and mentoring to ensure that Oxfordshire businesses continue to thrive?

Vincent Cable: I think we all agree that small business Saturday is a positive, cross-party initiative, and hon. Members on both sides of the House will be out there backing it. I praise the originality of my hon. Friend’s approach.
	On small business funding—I am sure this issue will be raised many times—I have drawn attention to the StartUp loans scheme that is helping large numbers of start-ups to get going, and the business bank is supporting both new and original forms of funding, as well as a rapid expansion of guarantees for existing companies.

Jason McCartney: I, too, will support small business Saturday, as I have done in the build-up to this weekend. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Holmfirth Hullabaloo and Totally Locally Slaithwaite campaigns, which have engaged local shopkeepers with innovative reward and prize schemes to encourage local communities to shop locally?

Vincent Cable: I do not know what those exciting schemes involve, but they sound fun. The basic underlying theme is that we are all being urged to support our local shops and to shop locally. I am sure that is a very good theme around which we can all unite.

Andy Slaughter: Across my constituency, small businesses are being forced out by big developers who want to redevelop them for luxury flats. The local council is supporting that, and in the case of Shepherd’s Bush market, has even issued compulsory purchase orders to drive out small businesses. The Tory party will always prefer big business over small business. What will the Secretary of State do about this situation?

Vincent Cable: This distinction between big business and small business is seriously unhelpful—most big businesses have supply chains—and we should support both.

Meg Hillier: Many small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency—including in Shoreditch, which the Prime Minister calls tech city—are keen to bid for Government contracts, thereby growing, employing more people and becoming larger businesses. What is the Department doing to support them, because they face many hurdles in trying to become Government contractors?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Lady will find that the trend in Government procurement is very much on track to meet the 25% target for small business. It is much more difficult with devolved bodies, such as health authorities and local government, but we are working on that with the relevant Departments.

David Hanson: Less than seven days ago, the Secretary of State said to a small business forum in Bath that solar energy
	“had a part to play in powering the nation”.
	Will he tell me whether Government is actually joined up, given that small businesses in my constituency are complaining to me about the cuts announced yesterday?

Vincent Cable: Enormous numbers of homes use solar power. The major technological advances in that area are driving down costs. We need to see that happen across renewable energy. The Government of course had to cut the subsidy when it became clear that the industry was more sustainable.

Toby Perkins: Without wishing to show off, I am going to 20 small businesses on Saturday across Chesterfield and Staveley—my wife is bringing her purse.
	The urgency of small business Saturday seems all the more serious after a recent report by the Association of Convenience Stores which shows that 55% of its owner members earn less than the minimum wage on an hourly basis. Is the Secretary of State really telling those people that further cuts to corporation tax for big companies are a higher priority than cutting their business rates, which are the most expensive commercial property tax in Europe?

Vincent Cable: I am very sympathetic to the business groups that have consistently made representations over the past few months to say that business rates are a major burden. This Department has certainly made it clear that we regard it as a major issue. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for an hour or so to find out what the Chancellor is doing about it.

Small Business Regulation

Philip Hollobone: How many regulations affecting small businesses the Government have (a) introduced and (b) removed since May 2010.

Michael Fallon: The statement of new regulation, which we publish every six months, shows that since January 2011 we have introduced 57 regulatory measures, 135 deregulatory measures and 108 measures that have no net cost to business, many of which are deregulatory. That is saving British businesses nearly £1 billion a year. Small businesses, which account for 99% of all businesses, benefit in particular from the one in, one out rule—it is now the one in, two out rule—that drives this deregulation.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate the Minister on his efforts to secure an exemption for micro-businesses from specific EU regulations. That will help small businesses in Kettering and across the country. What further efforts does he intend to make to secure more exemptions from harsh EU rules?

Michael Fallon: The EU business taskforce, which I chair, identified 30 regulations that should be repealed. We continue to press the Commission to lighten the rules for small businesses and to exempt the very smallest businesses altogether.

Apprenticeship Minimum Wage

Graeme Morrice: What recent estimate he has made of the number of apprentices being paid below the apprenticeship minimum wage.

Jo Swinson: The Government have overseen one of the most successful expansions of apprenticeships, with about 1.5 million apprenticeship starts since 2010. However, we are concerned that the level of non-compliance with national minimum wage rules, which the 2012 apprenticeships survey shows to
	be 27%, remains too high. The Government have zero tolerance for employers who break the law. That is why we have introduced a range of enhanced enforcement measures to crack down on such rogue employers.

Graeme Morrice: I thank the Minister for her answer. It is certainly worrying that the proportion of apprentices who are not receiving the apprenticeship minimum wage has increased and that one in four apprentices do not receive it. What firm and decisive action is she taking to clamp down on the rising non-compliance of employers with the apprenticeship minimum wage, especially given that the number of young people aged 16 to 18 who are starting apprenticeships has fallen?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that the Government are concerned about and are acting on. From 1 July, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has prioritised complaints about the apprenticeship minimum wage to ensure that it brings proper enforcement against employers who are not paying it. Further, we have made it much easier to name and shame employers who do not pay the minimum wage. We have also announced that we will increase the maximum penalty fine to £20,000. That tough programme of enforcement action should help to ensure that businesses pay their workers properly. That is what the public expect and it is what most responsible businesses already do.

Robert Halfon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of apprenticeships in my constituency of Harlow has increased by more than 80% in the past year? Will she congratulate the Harlow and district chamber of commerce and the businesses who are hiring apprentices and paying them proper apprenticeship wages? Will she also welcome the new university technical school, which is, in essence, a pre-apprentice school that will provide young people with skills?

Jo Swinson: I happily offer those congratulations, and I add to them my congratulations to my hon. Friend for the unfailing way in which he has championed apprenticeships, not just in his constituency, but in this House by encouraging many Members to take on apprentices in their offices. It is important to ensure that young people have such opportunities. That is why the Government have invested significantly in expanding apprenticeships so much.

Ronnie Campbell: Does the Minister accept that companies such as Wetherspoon, which will open shortly in my constituency, are taking on young people on zero-hours contracts?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman is right that many workers are employed on zero-hours contracts. In some cases those can work well, but in other cases there are concerns about abuse. That is why the Department has undertaken a fact-finding exercise, and we will shortly launch a consultation on what action can be taken to ensure that such contracts are not abused.

Engineers

Nigel Mills: What steps he is taking to encourage more people to become engineers.

Neil Carmichael: What steps he is taking to promote engineering as a career.

David Willetts: In September the Government announced a £400 million boost for science, technology, engineering and maths teaching. Last month we launched the first annual Tomorrow’s Engineers week, during which the Government worked with more than 70 partners. Our recently published Perkins review of engineering skills calls for action from employers, educators and the profession to work with us to inspire young people to become engineers.

Nigel Mills: Does the Minister agree with the importance of getting local engineering employers to work closely with skills providers to inspire young people to go into engineering, and will he join me in welcoming the soon-to-open Heanor studio college, which will do exactly that?

David Willetts: We strongly support such initiatives, which are absolutely what is required to ensure that employers get the skilled engineers they need.

Neil Carmichael: Now that the Government’s economic plan is delivering the rebalanced economy we need, we also need engineers, as the Minister just said. Does he agree that one way forward is to encourage engineering in schools, and to ensure that it is considered a protected profession?

David Willetts: I certainly agree that we need to encourage engineering in schools. “Engineer” is not a restricted term, but we support professional titles such as “chartered engineer” or “engineering technician”, which are regulated, and we aim to register 100,000 apprenticeships with EngTech status by 2018.

Lilian Greenwood: Does the Minister agree that investing in fundamental research is vital to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers and to create conditions for the serendipitous discoveries of the future?

David Willetts: I completely agree with the hon. Lady, which is why the Government support fundamental research. Only last week I went to the launch of £250 million of public money for centres of doctoral training run by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

Mark Lazarowicz: One of the biggest engineering projects this country has ever seen will be High Speed 2. What specific steps is the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills taking in conjunction with the Department for Transport to ensure that engineering opportunities are available to businesses throughout the entire country, not just firms adjacent to the route?

David Willetts: We are already working with the current largest infrastructure plan, Crossrail, to ensure that skills are available and that we take the opportunity to build up skills in crucial techniques such as tunnelling. We will take the same approach to HS2.

Mark Spencer: I recently visited Fairfield Control Systems in my constituency, which is a small engineering company responsible not only for moving the roof at Wimbledon, but for the Division bells in the House of Commons. One of its main concerns was the Government’s encouragement of STEM subjects by the Department for Education. Has the Minister spoken with that Department about how we can encourage the teaching of STEM subjects within the school system?

David Willetts: STEMnet ambassadors are doing a fantastic job of going to schools to encourage young people to study those subjects. There is a surge in the number of young people taking A-levels in subjects such as maths and physics, which are often a requirement for going on to engineering.

IT Skills

Harriett Baldwin: What assessment he has made of the ability of businesses to recruit staff with appropriate IT skills.

David Willetts: Our recent information economy strategy shows that employers find it hard to get people with the right IT skills, yet there is also relatively high unemployment among computer science graduates. That is why I recently convened a round-table with vice-chancellors and employers to tackle that mismatch. I know that issue is vital in the Malvern cyber-valley that my hon. Friend does so much to support.

Harriett Baldwin: Indeed, cyber-security IT skills are vital for the online world. Will the Minister welcome the initiative by private sector firms in my constituency to set up a cyber-skills training centre, and may I invite him, once again, to visit?

David Willetts: I do support that initiative and I hope it will be possible to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency, because I know how much she does to support the Malvern cluster, which will soon be rivalling the Cambridge cluster and tech city.

Offshore Wind Turbines

Charles Kennedy: What assessment he has made of the potential opportunities for manufacturers in onshore construction of offshore wind turbines.

Vincent Cable: In August the Government launched their offshore wind industrial strategy, which aims to build a thriving UK supply chain. Currently, there are 1,375 offshore wind turbines operational or under construction and, on average, half of the capital value of those projects comes from other parts of the supply chain in which the UK has leading expertise. Yesterday’s announcement on the electricity market reform makes clear the Government’s commitment to developing offshore wind in the UK.

Charles Kennedy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed reply, and I too welcome yesterday’s news, not least given the market uncertainty recently when RWE was forced, for geological reasons, to pull out of the proposed £4 billion north Devon offshore wind farm. The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), knows that I have raised the potential of the Kishorn site on the west coast of my constituency previously and yesterday’s news will give added confidence to those who are looking at the potential there, but what forms of further support might such a site be able to attract? Given the weather today, I cannot repeat my invitation to my right hon. Friend to visit, but I hope to do so in future, more clement times.

Vincent Cable: I would be delighted to visit the site, and the mountains, in my right hon. Friend’s constituency. The site to which he refers is extraordinary and in its prime, in the North sea oil boom, it built the largest mobile structure on the planet at 600,000 tonnes. It has great future potential, and if this supply chain development takes place, 2,500 new jobs will be created. We want to do everything we can to make that possible, and the announcement yesterday certainly helps. He will know that the Catapult in Glasgow is working on the technology behind offshore wind developments, and we will do everything we possibly can to make sure that Kishorn and other UK ports develop on the back of that rapidly growing industry.

Barry Gardiner: The Secretary of State speaks of a rapidly growing industry, but the commitment by the Government three years ago was to 40GW of offshore by 2020. The commitment yesterday was for 10GW. Why has that commitment shrunk to 25% of what it was?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that Britain has by far the largest offshore wind industry in the world, and under the guarantees that we gave yesterday it now has the incentive to expand—and will do so, both onshore through the supply chain and offshore in the wind farms.

Business Bank

Stephen Timms: What progress he has made in setting up a business bank operating regionally and locally.

Vincent Cable: The British business bank is being established to increase the supply of capital to smaller businesses throughout the UK, resulting in increased competition in the banking sector from alternative lenders, such as peer-to-peer lenders and challenger banks. It is being established with £1 billion of new capital, with another £250 million announced on Monday for new small business programmes.

Stephen Timms: The Secretary of State will know that Bank of England figures show that small business lending fell by £1.5 billion over the past quarter. Can he reassure us that this new institution will be more than simply rebranding the previous schemes that have proved so unsuccessful?

Vincent Cable: The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is a negative trend in net lending. It has been sustained and is worrying, although gross lending is now beginning to recover quite rapidly. The interventions of the business bank will do two things. They will support existing schemes—in fact the take-up under the guarantee schemes has risen by 85% over the last year since they came under the business bank—and they will provide new funding. He will know that, under agreements we have already reached, new debt funds have been supported, and those will find their way into support for small businesses in his and other constituencies.

John Stevenson: In north Cumbria, we already have the very successful Cumberland building society. Would the Secretary of State agree that such societies should be supported and, most importantly, smaller financial organisations should not be overburdened by regulation?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is right that the building societies have a crucial role, primarily of course in mortgage lending, which is their traditional business, but some of them are moving into small business lending and that is very welcome. One of the reasons why the Chancellor and I did not support the recommendations of the parliamentary commission on leverage ratios was to protect building societies and enable them to expand.

Adrian Bailey: Given the failure of successive well-intentioned but ineffective Government schemes to boost lending for small businesses, including £78 million of unallocated resources for the funding for lending scheme, will the Secretary of State outline what extra measures he will take to ensure that the business bank succeeds where other schemes have failed?

Vincent Cable: The bank is already succeeding. As I said to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), there has been a very big increase in the lending being made available under the existing schemes and a big growth in equity-related activity. I think he will find that, as the business bank moves forward, we will use the £1.25 billion of new capital from the Treasury to do exactly what it was designed to achieve. I am very positive about the bank’s future.

Stella Creasy: The Secretary of State admits that there have been problems with the Government’s plans. One area of lending at a local level that has been picking up the pieces and expanding is payday lending to businesses. Does the Secretary of State now accept that his Department was wrong to oppose capping the cost of credit, given that businesses have been ripped off by legal loan sharks as much as consumers?

Vincent Cable: The evidence from Bristol university among others, which we support, suggested genuine potential problems with a cap on interest rates, but we have been persuaded, on the balance of evidence, that we should do it. There are good experiences, in places such as Florida in the United States, that we will now seek to apply in the UK. I congratulate the hon. Lady and others on their persistent campaigning on this subject. I think we have now achieved a good outcome.

Workplace Insecurity

John Cryer: If his Department will make an assessment of the main causes of insecurity in the workplace.

Jo Swinson: The 2011 workplace employment relations study found that employees’ feelings of job insecurity were related to three factors: whether their workplace had been subject to any recent redundancies; the perception among managers of the effect of the recent recession; and the number of changes at work experienced by employees.

John Cryer: An increasing proportion of the work force is subject to zero-hours contracts. Does the Minister think that they have anything to do with job insecurity? Do they contribute to insecurity or do they contribute to security?

Jo Swinson: We have of course been looking at these issues and there is a range of evidence out there. The hon. Gentleman might be interested in the survey published last week by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which found there was no difference in the level of job security experienced by zero-hours workers compared with the average employee. We have looked at a range of problems that have been identified, such as exclusivity, the information available and the uncertainty over earnings. We will be publishing a consultation shortly.

Tony Baldry: Is not the greatest cause of insecurity for those in work the nightmare prospect of the shadow Chancellor ever getting anywhere near the door of No. 11 Downing street, given that he has been proved wrong in every single economic prediction he has made?

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point. We want to ensure job security by having falling unemployment and a growing economy. That is exactly what the Government are delivering. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. It is a bit unsatisfactory if one Minister is heckling another. You yourself, Mr Hancock, are undergoing an apprenticeship to become a statesman, but I think there are some years to run.

Alex Cunningham: Hundreds of workers across north-east England joined the millions across the country in fearing for their future when npower decided last week to export hundreds of jobs to India and force Thornaby-based workers to travel to a new location nearly an hour away. Does the Minister now understand why half the working population fear for their jobs and feel insecure? What is she going to do about it?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman understandably raises a constituency case, and I am sure the whole House feels for people in that position. Insecurity in that kind of circumstance, where jobs are lost or people fear for their jobs, is something we all understand. The best way to deliver the security that everybody wants to
	see for their constituents in work is to continue the recovery that the Government have started, ensure that we keep interest rates low, have a thriving economy and support the small businesses up and down the country that are the engine of growth. That is what the Government’s plan for recovery is delivering.

Ian Murray: One of the main contributors to the rise in the number of people feeling insecure at work is their inability to seek justice through the employment tribunals system. Data announced last week by solicitors Pinsent Masons showed that in some regions the number of employment tribunal claims had fallen by almost 80% since the introduction of fees, despite the Government’s impact assessment measuring it at just 20%. In the light of these figures, does the Minister agree that the level of fees is fundamentally restricting access to justice, and does she agree with the Scottish Women’s Convention that fees are disproportionately affecting women and they are discriminated against in the workplace?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful with his use of statistics, because we have introduced a range of changes to the tribunals system aimed at getting employers and employees to resolve disputes outside the tribunals system, which I would have thought everybody would have welcomed, given that tribunals are costly in terms of time, stress and money for everybody involved on both sides of the dispute. Our proposals, which we are implementing, on early conciliation and making it easier for disputes to be resolved should be working to reduce the number of tribunals, but the Ministry of Justice has committed to keeping these issues under review, particularly the equality aspects and whether there is any disproportionate effect on one particular group.

Higher Education

Caroline Lucas: If he will make it his policy to increase investment in higher education.

David Willetts: That is already our policy. Higher education is vital to our future productivity and economic growth. That is why we have reformed university finance and protected research spending. As a result of our reforms, total university income for teaching will rise from £7.2 billion in 2011-12 to £9.1 billion in 2014-15.

Caroline Lucas: The Minister will know that spending on higher education remains lower than the OECD average, yet higher education makes a huge contribution to the national economy, as I know from the two excellent universities in Brighton and Hove, so will he do even more to address this gap please? Will he also make an assessment of the University and College Union proposal to fund our knowledge economy via an increase in corporation tax for the richest 4% of our corporations, rather than by relying on tuition fees that unfairly fixate on the individual benefit of students going to university?

David Willetts: We have a fair and sustainable way of financing higher education. It is right to expect graduates to pay back the cost of their higher education if they are earning more than £21,000. That has enabled us to see more students going to university and increases in
	funding for teaching at universities, even while we have been tackling the budget deficit we inherited from the previous Government.

Liam Byrne: As you know, Mr Speaker, while the Minister was batting for Britain in Kazakhstan last week, the National Audit Office was battering his handling of the student loans system. We look forward to the hearings at the Public Accounts Committee, but in the meantime would he mind telling the House how late he discovered that students at private higher education institutions were soaking up public subsidies at such a rate that there was an overspend of hundreds of millions of pounds? How did he lose control so spectacularly?

David Willetts: Let us be clear: these students are studying for HNCs and HNDs, which are all legitimate and valuable qualifications. Whereas under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government there was no control whatsoever of the designation of alternative providers, we have introduced controls. The number of students going to alternative providers has increased dramatically, and in order to maintain budgetary controls, we have introduced further limits on the numbers, but these are worthwhile courses that we should support.

Zero-hours Contracts

Julie Elliott: What progress he has made on his review of zero-hours contracts.

Jo Swinson: During the summer, the Department undertook a fact-finding exercise to explore how these contracts are used and to identify the issues involved. We found that this type of contract worked well in some circumstances, but could be open to abuse. As a result, we have committed to publishing a consultation seeking views on zero-hours contracts and proposals to address the concerns raised. It will be published shortly.

Julie Elliott: Does the Minister accept that job insecurity has nearly doubled since 2010 and will she support Labour’s policy, which would stop zero-hours contracts that require workers to work exclusively for one business and end the misuse of zero-hours contracts where employees are, in practice, working regular hours over a sustained period?

Jo Swinson: I commend the hon. Lady for her consistency on his issue and for raising this concern on behalf of her constituents and others. Exclusivity was one of the issues we found in the fact-finding exercise over the summer to be of real concern, so that will be one of the issues that we will look at further in the consultation. We will also consider whether the transparency of information can be improved between employers and employees, so that there is a bit more certainty about what is expected on both sides of the contract. Used well, these contracts should provide flexibility in our labour market that can benefit both employers and employees.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for her written replies to my questions of 21 November, but will she ensure that the consultation addresses the parallel abuses where employees appear to be engaged as subcontractors as a way of masking the fact that they are being paid below the national minimum wage so that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs find it difficult to enforce the national minimum wage regulations?

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend raises an issue about subcontractors. Clearly, we have robust enforcement processes in place for the national minimum wage, but I know that there are concerns in some industries about false self-employment as well. The Government are well aware of that. I hope that my hon. Friend will have just a little more patience before hearing more about what we might do about that. I definitely agree that we must ensure that people are not exploited in the labour market by being forced on to contracts that deny them their basic employment rights.

Small Businesses

Chi Onwurah: What steps he is taking to support small businesses in Newcastle upon Tyne Central constituency.

Matthew Hancock: The regional growth fund has allocated £40 million-worth of funding to Newcastle, more than £4.7 million has been offered to local businesses under the enterprise finance guarantee, and there have been 85 start-up loans, totalling £414,000. UK Trade & Investment has supported 292 small and medium-sized businesses in Newcastle to export.

Chi Onwurah: I will celebrate small business Saturday with retailers and traders in Newcastle’s vibrant High Bridge quarter and fantastic Grainger market. I am glad that so many Members are supporting this Labour initiative. Does the Minister agree that the best news I could give these hard-working businesses would be that he is going to support another of the shadow Business Secretary’s proposals—to cut business rates and then freeze them?

Matthew Hancock: I am delighted that the hon. Lady is supporting the cross-party small business Saturday—an idea that we got from the real Barack Obama—and I hear her intervention on business rates. I recall, however, that the Labour Government legislated to double them for the smallest businesses. Of course we listen to small businesses about the business rates, but not to those who wanted to put up taxes for them.

Machinery Directive (Disabled People)

Mary Glindon: If he will bring forward legislative proposals for regulations under the EU machinery directive to protect disabled people.

Michael Fallon: The EU machinery directive was transposed into UK legislation by the Supply of
	Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008. These require products placed on the market to be safe when used for their intended use and are applicable to all relevant people. When used by persons with disabilities, the products must be just as safe for them as they are for able-bodied people.

Mary Glindon: My disabled constituent, Mr Harding, about whom I wrote to the Minister, has experienced recurring problems with his lift appliance, narrowly escaping injury on a number of occasions. Will the Minister say how Mr Harding and other disabled people can ever feel confident about using such equipment if it is not subject to specific legislation and if they have no recourse legally if an accident occurred?

Michael Fallon: I am sorry that Mr Terry Harding has had these difficulties over a long period with a number of products, but I am pleased that he has now been supplied with a new product—thanks, I think, to the intervention of the trading standards officers of North Tyneside council. I would be happy to discuss with the hon. Lady what further steps she thinks might be necessary and to look at the legislation again with her.

Exports

Simon Hughes: What steps he is taking to encourage exports.

Matthew Hancock: The Government are significantly increasing support for exporters by helping more small businesses on overseas tradeshows. As the right hon. Gentleman will well know, the Prime Minister has just led the largest-ever trade mission to China, but missions to smaller countries across the world are also vital to our economic future.

Simon Hughes: We have heard a lot about small business Saturday, and we all be doing our bit—yours truly included. Let me pick up the Minister’s commitment to ensuring that we do not do export drives only to China, India and the big countries, but particularly to small Commonwealth countries. I ask him to look at the potential for expanding our exports to the Caribbean countries, which feel that they have been slightly neglected in recent years.

Matthew Hancock: Absolutely. I agree that we need to expand our trade to the whole world, including the smaller Caribbean countries. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be here later this morning, when the Chancellor speaks.

Topical Questions

Julian Sturdy: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Vincent Cable: My Department plays a key role in supporting the rebalancing of the economy through business to deliver growth while increasing skills and learning.

Julian Sturdy: Portakabin, the world-class modular building company which is based in my constituency, has raised the possibility of supporting British exports through assistance with the translation of foreign regulations. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to deliver that vital service, which could break down barriers to trade and boost United Kingdom exports?

Vincent Cable: I know that the Prime Minister visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency recently and was very impressed by the Portakabin initiative. We have a concrete proposal for the establishment of a single market centre to help companies to negotiate overlapping regulations, particularly those relating to export controls. Translating regulations into a common language would make the process easier.

Chuka Umunna: We had black Friday last week and cyber Monday at the beginning of this week, but, as many Members have already pointed out, the only day that really matters is small business Saturday. I am sure that you will be visiting small independent local shops in Buckingham this weekend, Mr Speaker. Will the Business Secretary join me in thanking the huge coalition—including organisations representing more than 1 million businesses, AmEx, the Ingenious Britain campaign, and, above all, the national campaign co-ordinator for small business Saturday, Michelle Ovens—that has made this day possible?

Vincent Cable: I am happy to do that, and to acknowledge the collegiate, cross-party approach adopted by the hon. Gentleman. Small business Saturday is a very good initiative, and we should support and sustain it as much as we can.

Chuka Umunna: The owners of the businesses to which I referred will have heard about the Tomlinson report, which accuses RBS of artificially distressing successful businesses in order to seize assets and make a profit. That is a very serious allegation about a bank that we, of course, own. Tomlinson says:
	“Banks must ensure…that robust processes are in place to…avoid conflicts of interest.”
	It has transpired, however, that he is an RBS customer, and that he has a complaint about the bank pending. Was the Secretary of State aware of that before he allowed the report to be published, and does it not call the report’s independence into question? It is not independent, is it?

Vincent Cable: I was well aware that Mr Tomlinson was an RBS customer. He has been very public in his comments about the bank for a long time. He was appointed as entrepreneur in residence at my Department —we seem to have a team of entrepreneurs—and has contributed valuable insights. I have referred his report to the regulator and the bank. Crucially, his accusations are echoed in the report published by Sir Andrew Large, who was appointed by RBS.
	There are serious problems in the banking system, and in RBS in particular. Those problems need to be investigated, and I think that Mr Tomlinson has performed a useful service in making them public.

Andrew George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for her early reply in respect of the review of
	zero-hours contracts, but does she agree that driving out shady employment practices and improving wages, including the national minimum wage, would have the additional advantage of reducing the welfare benefits budget?

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend is right. That is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary asked the Low Pay Commission to identify the conditions that are necessary for an increase in the minimum wage. I think that we would all like wages to increase: things have been very difficult for households over the last few years following the economic crisis, and encouraging businesses to pay good wages encourages staff loyalty, motivation and productivity. It is, of course, important to balance that with the fear of unemployment, which we want to keep down.

Jonathan Reynolds: On Monday the Government announced substantial changes in the ECO energy efficiency scheme, including significant scaling back of the component that insulates solid walls. Most of the large-scale local authority and social landlord energy efficiency schemes depend on that component, and there will obviously be a correspondingly negative impact on the insulation industry. What discussions is the Department having with the industry about the likely number of job losses, and what are they doing to mitigate it?

Michael Fallon: I do not recognise the impact that the hon. Gentleman suggests. The energy company obligation scheme is being extended over a further two years, until 2015, and it is being focused better on those households that need it most.

Greg Mulholland: Two hundred and three MPs across this House now back the solution proposed by the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills to pubco overcharging: the market rent only option. Will the Department do the right thing this time, back the Select Committee, deal with this crony capitalism and listen to the voice of small business? Both the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business support our approach.

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend has been a stalwart campaigner on this issue, which, as he rightly points out, is of great interest to Members on both sides of the House and to the Select Committee. He will be aware that we undertook a consultation earlier this year, and we are reviewing the responses. He is also right to highlight the important contribution that organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses have been able to make in putting forward further research reports. We hope to be able to publish that kind of information very shortly so that more people will be able to look at the responses.

Rushanara Ali: In the light of the revelation that the Government have failed to act to close a tax loophole that has cost the public some £500 million a year,
	what discussions has the Secretary of State had with Treasury Ministers about the concern that some large firms are failing to pay the correct amount of tax while smaller ones are making their contribution?

Vincent Cable: There is a general concern about tax avoidance and there are some very public issues relating to certain companies. However, as the hon. Lady knows, in an hour’s time the Chancellor will be making the autumn statement, and I would be very surprised if a substantial part of that were not devoted to the issue of tax avoidance.

David Heath: The Gangmasters Licensing Authority does terrific work in dealing with one particular vulnerable group of employees. Is there any scope for extending that way of working to protect other sectors, such as the care and hospitality sectors, in which there is at least the implication of abuse of employees and very low wages?

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of protecting vulnerable workers. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has recently carried out a two-year investigation into practices in the social care sector, particularly in respect of payment of the national minimum wage, where some non-compliance was found and was absolutely acted on. We need to ensure that such behaviour is cracked down on, which is why we are delighted to be able to put more resources into cracking down on abuse of the national minimum wage, increasing the maximum penalty fines and making it much easier to name and shame employers who deliberately do not pay their workers the right amount. That is the right approach.

Andy Sawford: Is the Secretary of State aware of the latest scam hitting agency workers in my constituency and around the country, whereby they are deducted £2.50 a week for personal accident insurance, even though the cost to the agency is a fraction of that and the worker is already covered by employer’s liability insurance? Will he look into that and put a stop to it?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman has raised issues relating to agency workers on a number of occasions, and I know that in his constituency there is a particular concentration of them. We are always happy to look at whether workers are treated as they should be. I am happy to look into the specific issue he raises and get back to him.

David Nuttall: One of the biggest and most important decisions that any sole trader has to make is whether and when to take on their first employee. Will the Secretary of State set out what steps his Department is taking to make that process as easy as possible?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend is right to identify that moment in the life of a small business. By reducing the amount of national insurance paid, by introducing the employer allowance of £2,000 from April and by setting out that a company cannot be taken to a tribunal for two years, we are hoping to make it much easier to employ people and for small businesses to expand.

Stephen Timms: Work programme providers say that their participants can hardly ever get on to an apprenticeship, and that surely cannot be right. It may partly explain why the Work programme has been so disappointing. Does the Minister agree that more should be done to open up apprenticeships to unemployed people?

Matthew Hancock: A huge proportion of apprenticeships are undertaken by people who were previously unemployed. Of course, every apprenticeship is a job, and in order to get a job someone needs to have an employer willing to take them on. There are many other schemes, such as the traineeships, that Work programme providers work with in order to prepare people for getting a job. Ultimately, an apprenticeship is a job and is therefore a successful outcome for a Work programme person.

Simon Hughes: May I ask the Minister for Universities and Science what progress has been made in expanding the scholarship scheme for university students, particularly to help with the cost of living rather than the cost of fees?

David Willetts: We continue to provide support to students. The national scholarship programme has been shown to have less effect on young people choosing to go to university than some of the other support that is available through maintenance and student access programmes. We continue to work on the agenda set out by my right hon. Friend, ensuring that as many young people as possible from disadvantaged backgrounds apply to university.

Debbie Abrahams: The Government have consistently been on the back foot when it comes to addressing the issue of late payments to small businesses. In the review on that, how will they address the central issue that late payment is a cultural and leadership issue, and needs to be seen as unethical as tax evasion?

Matthew Hancock: Late payment is indeed a cultural and leadership issue. I held a meeting in the Department last week with all those concerned. As the hon. Lady well knows, we will be publishing a consultation paper very shortly. I commend her for her continued action and pressing on this issue.

Stephen Mosley: Small business in Chester is really getting behind small business Saturday this weekend. I have delivered more than 400 packs to businesses telling them what it is all about. Will the Minister commit to making an assessment of the success of the first small business Saturday, so that we can improve and help small business in future?

Matthew Hancock: I am sure that we can make a commitment right now to assess the success of small business Saturday, which will be celebrated across this House and across the country. This is the first one this year—it has been going on for some years in the United States—and I hope that it grows and grows.

Chris Ruane: The number of workers who feel insecure in the workplace has gone up from 6.5 million to 12 million since this
	Government came to power. That has a knock-on effect on the physical and mental health and productivity of workers. Will the Minister make an assessment and do some research into the effects of insecurity on the work force?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the downsides of job insecurity. We already have robust data from the workplace employment relations study, which gives us a strong base of research on which to draw to understand those issues. However, I gently point out to him that an increase in job insecurity is related to the fact that we had a massive economic shock on his party’s watch in government. High unemployment and unfortunate economic circumstances are the price that everyone is paying. The least his party can do is apologise.

Julian Huppert: For many years, Mill road winter fair has celebrated one of the most diverse shopping areas in Cambridge. This year the fair coincides with small business Saturday. Will the Government congratulate those who have been running the fair and encourage its spread so that we can see real diversity? We also want a road closure so that people can walk easily to the shops.

Matthew Hancock: I congratulate Cambridge on what it is doing for small business Saturday. I am sure that it will be a great success.

Caroline Lucas: The Secretary of State will be aware of the mechanism in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership that will allow global corporations to sue Governments before secretive arbitration panels that bypass domestic courts. As his own Department’s research says that nothing would insulate the UK from becoming subject to costly and controversial arbitration claims in the future, will he work to ensure that investor-to-state dispute settlements are removed from that agreement?

Vincent Cable: The overall context is that the transatlantic agreement between the European Union and the United States, if it materialises, would be of enormous economic benefit. We realise that there are some tricky negotiating issues, and the hon. Lady has highlighted one of them. We will try to ensure that the interests of our economy are properly protected.

Mary Macleod: Will my hon. Friend keep pushing for the teaching of enterprise in our schools, so that we can inspire a whole new generation of entrepreneurs?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I will, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work, especially in her constituency where new academies that link the world of work and the world of enterprise are springing up with her support.

Paul Blomfield: May I press the Minister for Universities and Science further on why he repeatedly rejected warnings on uncontrolled financial support to students in private higher education colleges? In March, he argued that the policy was important to enable private providers to continue with their expansion, but now that he is faced with a growing black hole in the BIS budget, he has
	reversed the policy. Will he explain why and will he guarantee no further cuts to student support to pay for his mistake?

David Willetts: Let us be clear, we inherited from the previous Government a complete rubber-stamping exercise under which there was no control whatsoever over alternative providers. We introduced controls. For example, in the last year, out of 87 applications from alternative providers, 18 were approved and 69 were rejected. That was effective quality control and we have taken further steps to ensure that the Department can remain within its budget.

Mark Reckless: Our plans predate small business Saturday, but this weekend in Rochester we have a Christmas fair and also a Dickens weekend. They attract many thousands of people to Rochester, which has, almost entirely, independent small businesses. Will the Minister join me in welcoming that?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is adding his name to the roll call. Perhaps we could simplify this process, whereby if everybody in the House who does not support small business Saturday puts up their hands.

Bill Esterson: I shall enjoy supporting small business Saturday, too. Many young people take their first job in retail and gain vital experience and training that stands them in good stead for the rest of their working lives. Given the problems that retail faces, what steps will the Government take to support retail, especially to deal with the scourge of youth unemployment?

Matthew Hancock: We support the national skills academy for retail, and I recently opened its new premises. It is a great supporter, ensuring that people in retail have the right skills to do the job and to progress.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for the next week is as follows:
	Monday 9 December—Second Reading of the Intellectual Property Bill [Lords], followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism, followed by a general debate on rural communities. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Tuesday 10 December—Remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions Bill, followed by the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
	Wednesday 11 December—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.
	Thursday 12 December—Select Committee statement on the publication of the first report from the Liaison Committee entitled “Civil Service: Lacking Capacity”, followed by a general debate on the fishing industry, followed by a debate on a motion relating to Ford and Visteon UK Ltd pensioners. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 13 December—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 16 December will include:
	Monday 16 December—Second Reading of the Care Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 17 December—Remaining stages of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 18 December—Opposition day (15th allotted day). There will be a debate on accident and emergency services, followed by a debate on food banks. Both debates will arise on an official Opposition motion.
	Thursday 19 December—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 20 December—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 16 January will be:
	Thursday 16 January—A combined debate on the second report from the Justice Committee on “Women Offenders: After the Corston Report” and the fifth report on older prisoners.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.
	The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) announced this week that after a good innings in Parliament he will declare on 41 not out. I am sure that everyone will join me in paying tribute to one of the longest serving Members of the House, and I wish him all the best in his next choice of career. I will not predict a swift return this time, but may
	I suggest that his local party needs to incorporate an IQ test as part of the selection process for his successor to stop the Mayor of London sniffing around?
	I note that on the Order Paper today there is a written ministerial statement on the progress of universal credit—a major announcement about a flagship Government policy that as recently as last month the Work and Pensions Secretary guaranteed would be delivered on time. The statement was slipped out just two hours before the autumn statement, and made available to the media before it was made available to the House. It announces major delays and the complete upheaval of the universal credit scheme, which affects millions of people. Despite the importance of the announcement, there is very little detail about what is actually going on. This is a contemptible way to treat Parliament.
	When the Work and Pensions Secretary’s delusions about the practicality of his grand reforms collide with reality, he should be forced to come to this House in person to account for himself. Will the Leader of the House now guarantee that the Secretary of State will explain himself to the House at the earliest opportunity?
	The Prime Minister’s unlikely infatuation with the Chinese Communist party continued apace this week, as he skipped Prime Minister’s questions again, postponed the autumn statement until today and flew to Beijing to deliver a framed photograph of himself and a biography of Margaret Thatcher. After being in the diplomatic deep freeze for three years, the Prime Minister took his re-initiation like a man and ended up feasting on bamboo fungus in the spectacular surroundings of the great hall of the people—and to think he was the one who accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) of taking mind-altering substances. It is clear that the Prime Minister has been getting into bad habits, too; his press conference with the Chinese Premier consisted of two long statements, no questions, and concluded to rapturous applause from the journalists who had the honour to be present. I think the Lobby had better watch out.
	The Prime Minister has been on more foreign junkets in three short years than there are Lib Dem betrayals, but the trade deficit has got worse this year, so may we have a statement on the value for money that these spectacularly expensive, taxpayer-funded PR opportunities represent?
	There is less than an hour to go before the Chancellor gets to his feet to deliver the delayed autumn statement. We have had the usual raft of selected leaks to the press and Government pre-statement announcements. The Chancellor was even tweeting bits of it last night. He’s got form. In the 2012 Budget, we had tax U-turns on pasties, charities and caravans, and the word omnishambles entered the Oxford English Dictionary. In last year’s autumn statement, the Chancellor’s flagship Swiss tax deal and the 4G auction both raised less than a third of what he had scored in the Red Book, and large chunks of the last Budget were published before he even got to the House.
	This year, the Chancellor has been busy getting his U-turns in first. He has been getting more incoherent by the day. He thinks it is Marxist to cap energy prices but positively Thatcherite to cap payday loans. He has been so panicked by the popularity of our energy price freeze that he has persuaded the Energy Secretary to claim that a £70 increase in bills is actually a cut. When will he
	realise that, on energy, only a price freeze will do? And while he is at it, will he realise that after the record £1.4 billion Euro-fine of banks involved in the Euribor and LIBOR fixing yesterday, he should accept the Lords amendments to the banking reform Bill that create a licensing regime for senior bankers? Will the Leader of the House confirm that he is planning to do that?
	Despite the welcome news that our economy is growing again, growth is only a third of what the Chancellor predicted it would be in 2010 and we have the slowest recovery for 100 years. All the Chancellor has delivered is a recovery that helps a few at the top and leaves ordinary people hurting. That is this Chancellor all over—tax cuts for millionaires and a living standards crisis for everybody else.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the future business and especially for her very kind words about the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young). The House will have an opportunity, which I look forward to, to express its full appreciation of my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] There is plenty of time yet. You never know with my right hon. Friend quite what is going to happen, because he has a habit of re-emerging in different guises. He has had more regenerations than Dr Who.
	The hon. Lady asked about the written statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in which he set out the further steps we have been taking to trial, learn, implement and put in place an effective online digital system. [Interruption.] It is perfectly reasonable to tell the House about steps that are being taken in line with the policy to deliver universal credit on time and on budget, and my right hon. Friend has done it by way of a written statement to the House.
	The hon. Lady asked about the Prime Minister not being here for Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. As it happens, and as she knows, the Prime Minister has been here to answer questions at least as often as his predecessors. In particular, he has made more statements to the House than any of his predecessors. What the hon. Lady said was wrong in relation to where the Prime Minister’s priorities should lie. He has, among many other things, been a leader in going around the world winning business for this country, and for him to be in China winning £1 billion of business will enable us, having almost doubled exports to China under this Government, to do more in the future. It is extremely important that we do so.
	The hon. Lady asked the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. I announced that the House would consider amendments from the Lords during our debates next Wednesday. If I may, I will leave that debate until next Wednesday, rather than pre-empt it now. The Bill will enable us to put in place effective banking regulation for the future, after the failure of the tripartite system that was put in place by the shadow Chancellor when he was the financial services Minister.
	Speaking of the shadow Chancellor, we are all looking for him. We could not find him when the national infrastructure plan was being reported to the House yesterday, so we look forward to having him here today.
	I am sort of sorry that, in the business announced, the Opposition did not use their opportunity of an Opposition day before Christmas to debate the economy, as we could have discussed the long-term plan of this Government, which is clearly demonstrating that we are turning the corner and building a strong and sustainable recovery. After the small hors d’oeuvre of business questions, I look forward to a satisfying main course when the Chancellor makes his statement.
	An Opposition day debate before Christmas would enable us to contrast what we are doing and what the Chancellor will say in his statement with the absence of any plan now from the Opposition. They had plan B. That seems to have disappeared, along with the prospects of the shadow Chancellor. Such a debate would enable us to recall, in a compare and contrast way, what the Leader of the Opposition had to say when President Hollande was elected, which I always rather relish. He said that what President Hollande was going to do for France, Labour was going to do for Britain. In truth, that is a contrast that, like their plan B, the Opposition now do not want to talk about.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. As always, many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but time is especially constrained today as the autumn statement will begin at 11.15. As a consequence, there is a premium on brevity from Back and Front Benches alike, beginning with Mr Nigel Evans.

Nigel Evans: Some 44 million people worldwide suffer with Alzheimer’s disease and it is estimated that the number will treble by 2050. May we have a debate on dementia to see what more we can do to help carers, those who have a loved one suffering with Alzheimer’s, and research and development in order to give hope to people suffering with Alzheimer’s?

Andrew Lansley: Members across the House will share with my hon. Friend a sense of the importance that we attach to making further progress in the research into the causes of dementia and its treatment, and the way in which we as a society respond to those with dementia. I was very pleased that the Backbench Business Committee was able to schedule a debate before the G8 summit next Wednesday. I hope that with the progress we are making in research on dementia and its treatment, there may be further opportunities in the new year.

Andrew Miller: May we have an urgent debate on the Government’s policy to exacerbate the north-south divide following the announcement, which advantages the Leader of the House’s constituency, that the A14 will not be tolled but the Mersey Gateway will?

Andrew Lansley: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here yesterday, but the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was perfectly clear that it is entirely normal to toll estuarial crossings. If the A14, which passes through my constituency, had been tolled, it would have been the only main route tolled in circumstances where there was no viable alternative.

Alan Reid: My constituent William Irving, a former soldier, has been held in prison in India for more than seven weeks without charge,
	along with five other British citizens. May we have a statement from the Foreign Office on what efforts are being made to try to secure the release of Mr Irving and his fellow prisoners and to look after their health and welfare, bearing in mind that he has been ill with dysentery?

Andrew Lansley: I completely understand why my hon. Friend raises this importance issue for his constituents—other Members of the House are in a similar situation. Consular officials have been providing assistance since the men were detained, liaising closely with the Estonian and Ukrainian embassies, as nationals of those countries are also involved. They have visited them four times to confirm their welfare and ensure that they have access to legal representation. We are also providing ongoing support to their families in the UK.

Kate Hoey: The Leader of the House will know that the chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten, refuses to appear before the European Scrutiny Committee. May we have a debate or a discussion on how we can ensure that he is not abusing his position as a Lord to avoid appearing before the Committee, which wishes to talk about scrutiny in relation to European elections and BBC bias?

Andrew Lansley: I am aware of what the hon. Lady is talking about. I note from Lord Patten’s correspondence with the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee that he expressly did not rely on the fact that he is a Member of the House of Lords in this regard. I will have conversations with the Committee’s Chair and the BBC on the matter, because there is a difference between independence for the BBC, which we absolutely must respect, and accountability, which should enable this House to ask reasonable questions.

Mr Speaker: I must say that anybody who is invited to appear before a Committee of this House should do so. No one, however senior, should imagine him or herself above such scrutiny. That is a very important principle.

Conor Burns: My right hon. Friend will be aware of a proposal for a large offshore wind farm by the Navitus Bay company off the coast of Bournemouth. In the light of the Government’s announcement this week on onshore and offshore wind farm subsidy, my constituents are profoundly concerned that the development could go ahead. It has been shown that a third of summertime visitors would not return during the five-year period of construction and that 14% would never return. Will he provide an opportunity for the Government to reassure my constituents that some offshore wind farms are, and remain, as inappropriate as some onshore ones?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes his point straightforwardly and forcefully. I will talk with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Communities and Local Government about that, particularly the extent to which the points he raises are material considerations in relation to planning.

Barry Sheerman: I am sure that the Leader of the House will have seen that Huddersfield university won the university of the year award last Friday, and, indeed, that last year it was the entrepreneurial university of the year. May we have a debate on student loans and the fact that the sell-off of student loans will be a very hard lesson for those people who owe money and will now be chased by some of the hard men of the loan business?

Andrew Lansley: I gladly join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Huddersfield university—as the Member of Parliament who represents Cambridge university, I am glad to do so. On his other point, I remind him that, notwithstanding the sale of the student loan book, the regulations and provisions that apply to the recovery of student loans will be no different for any future owner than they are for the Government now.

Oliver Colvile: May I congratulate the Government on their announcement this week about keeping energy prices down and South West Water on its announcement that it will freeze water prices for the next two years? Unfortunately, Labour-controlled Plymouth city council is considering putting up council tax next year despite the Chancellor’s announcement that that does not need to happen. May we have a debate on this before the budgets are set by local authorities such as Plymouth?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend, like me, might have been surprised that when Labour Members responded to a statement on water bills they appeared completely to ignore the fact that this Government had taken steps to ensure that water bills in the south-west were kept down through substantial support to the local water company. This Government have enabled council tax to be frozen right through this Parliament. That is very significant, as is the fact that council tax doubled under the previous Labour Government. However, this is of course something that local authorities have to take up.

Sammy Wilson: This week millions of Royal Bank of Scotland customers suffered inconvenience and embarrassment when they could not use their bank cards. The week before, it was revealed that businesses have been forced into bankruptcy so that RBS could seize their assets. May we have a debate on what is happening in this state-owned bank?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot offer a debate at the moment, but he will appreciate that during next Wednesday’s debate on banking reform issues may well arise relating to banking standards and the performance of the banks, including those in which the public sector—the Government—has a substantial stake, and he may wish to use that opportunity to discuss them.

Peter Bone: In about 34 minutes we will hear the autumn statement for the second time. I am sure the Leader of the House is as horrified as other Members about how much of it has already been leaked. Previously, the Government have said that this has been due to Liberal Democrat Ministers leaking the information. May we have a statement next week on this very serious matter?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will understand that, in so far as he is surmising anything, he is in fact speculating. We have not heard the statement yet, so let us hear it. I am sure that the recommendations set out in the Macpherson review back in July have been adhered to by the Chancellor and the Treasury. I hope that is helpful to my hon. Friend.

Chris Bryant: How can it possibly be right for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to announce a complete restructuring of universal credit by means of a written statement and give it to the press two hours before he gives it to us, and to answer questions from the press before we are able to ask questions? Does not the Leader of the House understand the fundamental principle of his job, which is to make sure that we are able to ask questions? For instance, we would like to ask whether, when the Secretary of State says in his written ministerial statement that the majority of the legacy cases will be moving to universal credit in 2016 and ’17—the majority, note, not all—he really means that he would like to apologise to the House because he got it wrong two weeks ago when he said that this was on budget and on time?

Andrew Lansley: I will be responsible for discharging my responsibility to the House and the hon. Gentleman can be in charge of his. It is important for the House to recognise two things. First, putting a written ministerial statement before the House is announcing something to the House; it should not be disregarded. Secondly, on the day of the autumn statement it is perfectly reasonable for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who will be seeing the Select Committee on Monday, not to be making an oral statement.

Glyn Davies: The most effective way of reducing incidents of stroke disease is by identifying and treating atrial fibulation. May we have a debate on improving access to and take-up of newly developed National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-approved drug treatments?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise a debate immediately, but this is an important issue. My hon. Friend will appreciate that during my several years as chair of the all-party group on stroke, it was one of the issues that emerged. We are making progress on a wide front in relation to the improvement of stroke services and on fast identification and treatment of stroke. On prevention, I hope that what my hon. Friend says about AF will be emphasised in our discussions about improving stroke services for the future.

Thomas Docherty: The overseas territories joint ministerial council took place last week and covered a huge number of issues that are of mutual interest to the UK Government, this Parliament and the overseas territories. Could a Foreign Office Minister be asked to come to the House to give a full statement so that we can hold them to account?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will know that the second joint ministerial council took place in London on 26 November and that its overall theme was jobs and growth. The meeting covered a range of subjects and an ambitious communiqué outlining the commitments made was issued at its conclusion. The United Kingdom’s
	relationship with the overseas territories is a very important one. The Government would welcome any proposal for a debate on the progress made at the council. The hon. Gentleman may wish to encourage colleagues to go before the Backbench Business Committee at some point to seek time for a debate on the subject in Westminster Hall.

Robert Halfon: Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 845 on the future of the Harlow respite care centre for children with special needs?
	[That this House acknowledges that the Maples children’s respite centre in Harlow is an integral part of the community that provides comfort and security to families and children with special needs; notes that Councillor Madden, Cabinet member for Essex County Council, has said that no final decision about the centre’s future will be taken unless alternative services that meet local needs are in place; strongly believes however that the Maples respite centre should be kept open as it is unlikely that similar alternative provisions will be found and that its closure would be detrimental to its hard-working staff, volunteers, parents and children for which the Maples acts as a lifeline; commends the petition (www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/essex-county-council-ensure-the-future-of-the-maples-respite-centre) that has been signed by 1,076 people; and urges Essex County Council to take note of the strong feelings of Harlow residents.]
	May we have a statement on the future of the Maples home in Harlow, which provides respite for children with special needs and their families? Essex county council is currently consulting on the future of the centre and possible closure. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Minister responsible to look into the matter and see what support is available for the centre?

Andrew Lansley: Once again my hon. Friend raises an issue of importance to his constituents, as evidenced by the number of signatories to the petition. He will know that short-break services are a priority for this Government. We know how they support children with disabilities and their families, which is why £800 million has been made available to local authorities for short breaks and why we have introduced a short-breaks duty requiring all local authorities to provide such services for disabled children and young people. As my hon. Friend will know, it is for local authorities to decide, in collaboration with local health services, the level and type of support they will make available. It is encouraging that the cabinet member for Essex county council has given assurances that no final decision about the centre’s future will be taken unless alternative services are available that meet families’ needs. I hope that is of some reassurance to my hon. Friend.

Yvonne Fovargue: May we have a debate on the complete disarray in NHS England, which is causing ever-lengthening delays and increasing concerns about the future of two greatly needed health centres in Orrell and Ashton?

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry, but I do not accept remotely the premise of the hon. Lady’s question. Given that NHS England formally started its work in April this year, I think that she and Members across the House should support it in its difficult tasks.

Tessa Munt: One of my constituents was forced to spend six months on unemployment benefit while he waited for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to process his medical, after which his large goods vehicle licence was returned to him. May we have a debate on the way in which the DVLA’s administration could be streamlined so that constituents like mine do not have to wait unnecessarily for extended periods at vast cost to the taxpayer?

Andrew Lansley: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, not least because I have a constituent who was in a similar position. If I may, I will ask my colleagues at the Department for Transport if they will look at the issue, because it is very difficult for those with medical conditions who have their driving licence suspended. If they recover, the failure to process the reacquisition of their driving licence quickly can, at the very least, be of considerable and serious inconvenience to them and potentially costly.

Alison McGovern: Minister after Minister has come to the Dispatch Box and trumpeted the number of new jobs, but they are not able to say how many of them are part time or short hours, whether they arise from public sector reclassification or are zero-hours contracts. May we have a statement to clear this mess up?

Andrew Lansley: On the contrary, I have heard my hon. Friends making it very clear that there are statistics relating to the number of those in part-time employment. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and others have definitions of things such as zero-hours contracts. There were never statistics under the previous Government. I am not sure why the hon. Lady imagines it is a fault on the part of this Government that we do not have those defined statistics, but she is right to say that we come to this Dispatch Box to trumpet the number of new jobs: there are 1.4 million more private sector jobs under this Government.

Therese Coffey: A few weeks ago, St Jude’s storm resulted in several thousand households in Suffolk being disconnected from electricity. The storm that is gathering in Scotland today is coming to Suffolk, with the entire coastline under a severe flood warning. I know that the Prime Minister has asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to chair a Cobra meeting. When will the Secretary of State be able to come to the House to make a statement?

Andrew Lansley: The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other Ministers are very aware of the risk associated with a surge tide and the risk that the current storm presents to my hon. Friend’s constituency and others. Many Scottish Members’ constituents are already experiencing the effects of the storm. I cannot at this stage say when the Secretary of State may be able to update the House. At the moment, he is engaged in considering precisely how every measure that might be taken is taken to help support those who may be affected.

Andrew McDonald: If we cannot have a statement on the universal credit debacle, may we please have one on exemption from the bedroom tax?
	Last week, the Prime Minister claimed that disabled people are exempt, although the Leader of the House mischievously did his best to attribute to him words that he never uttered. In reality, they are not exempt, and the extra money put into discretionary housing payments is nowhere near enough to make up the shortfall.

Andrew Lansley: I have heard Work and Pensions Ministers repeatedly respond extremely well to issues of the kind raised by the hon. Gentleman, in response not only to questions but to debates initiated by the Opposition.

Mary Macleod: The Airports Commission under Howard Davies is due to report this month on a shortlist of options in relation to the future of aviation capacity across the UK. Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on that in the new year, because it affects all regional airports as well as London?

Andrew Lansley: We are anticipating the publication of Howard Davies’s interim report, and I am sure that the House will want to consider it. May I, however, gently remind my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that following the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee, issues that they consider priorities can be debated by the House through an application to that Committee?

Nicholas Dakin: Conservative North Lincolnshire council has said that it will not support people hit by the bedroom tax who smoke. May we have a debate in the House about how local authorities are or are not supporting people hit by the bedroom tax with discretionary housing payments?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will know, because I have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions say this in the House, that additional resources have been made available to local authorities to help those with specific additional needs as a result of the spare room subsidy. In relation to precisely what local authorities are doing, I was not aware of the North Lincolnshire example, but I will of course speak to my hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions about whether they are aware of it and can respond to him.

David Heath: I have absolutely no requirement for assistance with payment protection insurance, insulating my property or making a claim for an accident that was not my fault, yet I am inundated with phone calls offering me such assistance, as are people up and down the country. In the light of the publication today of a report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and of the sterling work by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) to get a debate in Back-Bench time, will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to report on how we can deal with nuisance calls?

Andrew Lansley: It may be little comfort to my hon. Friend to know that he is not alone, but I hope that it may be some comfort to know that tackling unsolicited marketing or nuisance calls is being addressed through the measures in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport strategy paper that was published on 30 July, as
	he will recall. An action plan will be published shortly to set out future plans. I hope that it will be possible for Ministers to update the House during the type of debate that he mentioned.

Meg Hillier: Foreign students who get places at British universities but do not have good enough maths and English get extra coaching, but British students who are predicted to get good A-level grades but have grade C in GCSE maths do not receive the same support. Given the Government’s professed support for social mobility, will the Leader of the House ask a Minister to come to the House to make sure that that anomaly is dealt with?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. When I was at my old university in Exeter recently, I saw the substantial facility that it has to provide additional support to those whose first language is not English. If I may, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science to respond to her on the point that she raises.

Mark Reckless: Why are the remaining stages of the Immigration Bill being delayed? It would surely make sense for the House to vote on whether to extend the immigration restrictions for Bulgaria and Romania in advance of their being lifted on 1 January.

Andrew Lansley: I assure my hon. Friend that the Immigration Bill is not being delayed; it is simply that there is a lot of legislation before the House. In the future business before Christmas, I have announced progress on five Government Bills. Let me also explain to him that if there was a debate on the Immigration Bill in this House before Christmas, it would not necessarily have an impact on the timing of Royal Assent, because this is the first House that the Bill must pass through, not the second. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced important measures on this matter last week. I am therefore hopeful that regulations will be laid before the House shortly.

Jonathan Edwards: I was visited recently by a constituent who has terminal cancer. His condition will not lead to immediate death and he wishes to visit family and friends in Spain. However, he is unable to obtain affordable travel insurance. May we have a statement on what help the Government can offer to bring down the cost of travel insurance for individuals who find themselves in that situation?

Andrew Lansley: That sounds as though it is a particularly difficult and distressing situation for the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. If I may, I will talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to see whether they can help.

Julian Huppert: Isa Muazu has been held for months in Harmondsworth detention centre and has been on hunger strike for more than 100 days. He is ill and cannot stand or see properly. The Home Secretary tried to deport him nonetheless, but the plane had to fly back from Nigeria. May we have a debate on why the Home Secretary has spent well over £100,000 on trying to deport a seriously ill man?

Andrew Lansley: I will, if I may, ask the Home Secretary to respond to my hon. Friend on that specific case. Generally speaking, it is her responsibility to enforce the law, including immigration law, and she does that robustly.

Ian Murray: I do not know whether the Leader of the House is a reader of fiction, but if he is I recommend that over the Christmas period, he read the Scottish Government’s White Paper on independence. Once he has read that paper, I urge him to come back and offer some time for a debate on it in this House.

Andrew Lansley: As it happens, I have read the Scottish White Paper. Having read it, I was surprised to find that assumptions within it were overturned within hours. The House might want to seek an opportunity to debate that paper, not least through the Backbench Business Committee, because it is important to Members across the House.

Bob Blackman: In Harrow, reported crime is down by 10%, the clear-up rate is up by 22% and the number of police on our streets will be at record levels next March. May we have a debate on crime and policing so that we can proclaim the good news?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I am sure the Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers will be. I cannot promise a debate straight away because the amount of legislation is putting such pressure on Government time that it is precluding us from debating the many successes of this Government, of which the reduction in crime is an important one.

Richard Burden: Hundreds of thousands of people will have to use food banks this Christmas, so I welcome the fact that there will be a debate them. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to attend that debate? To support the case for that, perhaps he could use today’s Daily Mirror, in which Sara Broadbent, who has just had her hours cut from 16 to five, says:
	“David Cameron lives just down the road and he could do a lot more for us… I’d like to be able to look after my own kids and have food in the cupboards but there are times…when you just can’t do it.”
	Should the Prime Minister not account for the cost of living crisis over which he is presiding?

Andrew Lansley: As the hon. Gentleman noted, the Opposition have chosen that subject for debate and Ministers will respond. In that context, I think Members across the House will support food banks and charities that support others who are in need this Christmas, and rightly so. Last Saturday, along with many others in my constituency I participated in a food collection at Tesco to support the Cambridge food bank.

Jason McCartney: May we have a debate on transparency in local government? In the past week, Labour councillors voted en bloc in Kirklees to approve a supermarket in Slaithwaite, despite local concerns and a last-minute plea from 39 local businesses. Members in this House are held accountable in a transparent way for how they vote. Does my right hon.
	Friend agree that local councillors should be held accountable for the way they vote and decisions they make on behalf of our local communities?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Councillors should be accountable for the decisions they make—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are helpfully making the point that if Labour councillors are making decisions that are contrary to the views and interests of my hon. Friend’s constituents, come the next election those constituents will have an opportunity to do something about it.

Debbie Abrahams: This week 100,000 people signed a petition calling for a cumulative impact assessment on the effects of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 on sick and disabled people. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in this Chamber on that cumulative impact assessment?

Andrew Lansley: I did, of course, write to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee noting that that petition had passed the point of 100,000 signatures. At the meeting on Tuesday that Committee received a submission from Members about a debate on that subject. It is now not for me but for the Backbench Business Committee to decide whether a debate should be timetabled.

Greg Mulholland: Members across the House are helping constituent businesses with issues of bank bullying—I currently have cases involving Barclays, Lloyds and Yorkshire Bank. In the light of the Tomlinson report, may we have a debate on how we deal with that issue, which is high on the agenda of our constituents?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point that, I reiterate, is germane to the debate on the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. Lords amendments to that Bill will be debated in this House on Wednesday, I hope the important issue my hon. Friend raises may form part of that debate.

Albert Owen: Many thousands of households in Wales and England are concerned about the recent registration of manorial rights, including 4,000 households in Ynys Môn. May we have a debate
	on that issue, and will the Government give reassurance and information so that we protect the rights of ordinary people in Anglesey and beyond?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will know that registration of notice of manorial rights at the Land Registry is not related to rights relating to shale gas or oil. The Petroleum Act 1988 vests all rights to the nation’s petroleum resources in the Crown. Manorial rights have a distinct legal history, but can be legitimately bought and sold in the same way as other property rights. The registration of notice of manorial rights records existing rights so that people know they exist; it does not create new rights although it does, of course, help prospective buyers avoid what would otherwise be hidden rights. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that property owners who were unaware of existing mining rights when the notices arrived may have been alarmed by that, but I recommend they obtain legal advice, which should reassure them. If Members of the House have evidence of problems, my hon. Friends at the Ministry of Justice will be happy to help.

Stephen Mosley: May we have a debate on the effectiveness of the shadow Chancellor? After all, he claimed we are entering a triple-dip recession, that we should model our economy on that of France, and that we can reduce debt by borrowing more.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was in fact not just the shadow Chancellor but the Leader of the Opposition who, as I recall, said that what President Hollande is going to do for France, Labour would do for Britain. We are looking forward to a demonstration of the increasingly disappearing shadow Chancellor and his plan B.

Tom Blenkinsop: Average weekly gross pay for women in my constituency has fallen by £12.30 since 2010, while long-term female unemployment has risen by 144% since May 2010—[Interruption.] May we have a debate on why the Government do not have one wise man, let alone three?

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry that I did not hear all that the hon. Gentleman had to say, but I remind him that we have record employment for women, and 1.5 million women on low earnings are out of tax all together as a consequence of the increases in the personal allowances under the coalition Government.

Autumn Statement

George Osborne: Britain’s economic plan is working, but the job is not done. We need to secure the economy for the long term, and the biggest risk to that comes from those who would abandon the plan. We seek a responsible recovery, one in which we do not squander the gains we have made, but go on taking the difficult decisions, and one in which we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, but this time spot the debt bubbles before they threaten financial stability. We seek a responsible recovery, in which we do not pretend we can make this nation better off by writing cheques to ourselves, and instead make the hard choices. We need a Government who live within their means, in a country that pays its way in the world.
	Three and a half years ago, I set out our long-term economic plan in the emergency Budget. That plan restored stability in a fiscal crisis, but it was also designed to address the deep-seated problems of unsustainable spending, uncompetitive taxes and unreformed public services for which there are no quick fixes. Over the last three years we have stuck to our guns and worked through the plan. We have done so in the face of a sovereign debt crisis abroad, and at home in the face of opposition from those who got Britain into this mess in the first place and have resisted every cut, every reform, and every effort to get us out of that mess. We have held our nerve while those who predicted there would be no growth until we turned the spending taps back on have been proved comprehensively wrong.
	Thanks to the sacrifice and endeavour of the British people, I can today report the hard evidence that shows our economic plan is working, but I also report the hard truth that the job is not yet done. Yes, the deficit is down, but it is still far too high, and today we take more difficult decisions. Yes, the forecasts show that growth is up, but the same forecasts show growth in productivity is still too low, and today we set out further economic reforms. Yes, jobs are up and unemployment is down, but too many of our young people lack the skills to fill those jobs and the opportunities to acquire them, so now we take bold steps to remove that cap on aspiration. Yes, businesses are expanding, but business taxes are still too high and exports are too low and we must address that. And yes, real household disposable income is rising, but the effects of the financial crash on family budgets and the cost of living are still being felt. So where we can afford to help hardworking families, we will continue to do so—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Ruane, calm yourself, man. Your bellicose barracking is detectable several miles away.

George Osborne: The hard work of the British people is paying off, and we will not squander their efforts. We will secure the economy for the long term, and this statement sets out how.
	Let me turn to the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility. Again, I thank Robert Chote and his team for their rigorous and independent work. The
	OBR report notes that the Office for National Statistics has reassessed the depth of the great recession. The fall in GDP from peak to trough between 2008 and 2009 was not 6.3% as previously thought, but was instead an even more staggering 7.2%; £112 billion was wiped off our economy—about £3,000 for every household in this country—in one of the sharpest falls in the national income of any economy in the world. That is a reminder of the economic calamity that befell Britain and of the simple fact that our country remains poorer as a result of it. A lot of work still remains to be done to put that right. The data revisions also showed something else: there was no double-dip recession.
	Let me turn to the future. At the time of the Budget in March, the OBR forecast that growth this year would be 0.6%. Today, it more than doubles that forecast and the estimate for growth will be 1.4%. Next year, instead of growth of 1.8%, it is now forecasting 2.4%. Faster growth now means that it has revised the following four years to 2.2%, 2.6%, 2.7% and 2.7%, so growth over the forecast period is significantly up. It is still not as strong as we would like it to be, but this is the largest improvement to current year economic forecasts at any Budget or autumn statement for 14 years. I can report that Britain is currently growing faster than any other major advanced economy: faster than France, which is contracting; faster than Germany; and faster even than America. That contrast itself points to the risks that remain for the UK from abroad, and the weakness of many of our main trading partners.
	The first risk the OBR identified to our economic recovery is a recurrence of the damaging instability in the eurozone. Even with the relative calm of recent months, the OBR still forecasts that the euro area as a whole will shrink by 0.4% this year. Its growth forecasts for the US and emerging markets have also been revised down, and world trade has been weaker than it expected in March. While our exports are growing, they are not growing as fast as we would like. That is because we are too dependent on markets in Europe and north America. The Prime Minister’s visit to China this week is the latest step in the Government’s determined plan to increase British exports to the faster growing emerging markets, something our country should have done many years ago. Today, I am doubling to £50 billion the export finance capacity available to support British businesses, expanding the help available to firms in these emerging markets and ensuring that our excellent new trade Minister, Lord Livingston, has all the firepower he needs.
	Let me turn to the forecast for employment. Today in Britain, employment is at an all-time high and the OBR has revised up its forecast for the future. It was expecting jobs to stay flat over the year, but it now expects the total number of jobs to rise by 400,000 this year. This is being felt right across the country. Since 2010, the number of jobs in Carlisle and on the Wirral, and from Selby to south Tyneside, have all grown faster than in London. Meanwhile, the number of people claiming unemployment benefit has fallen by more than 200,000 in the past six months—the largest such fall for 16 years. Unemployment is also lower than in 2010, and is forecast to fall further from 7.6% this year to 7% in 2015, before falling even further to 5.6% by 2018. We have the lowest proportion of workless households for 17 years.
	There were those who said it was a “fantasy” to believe that businesses could create jobs more quickly than the public sector would have to lose them. What they should have said was that it would be fantastic if it happened. So I have good news for them. Businesses have already created three jobs for every one lost in the public sector, and the OBR report today forecasts that this will continue, with 3.1 million more jobs being created by businesses by 2019, which, in its words, “more than offsets” the million or so reduction in the public sector headcount. Far from the mass unemployment predicted, we have a record number of people in work, hundreds of thousands fewer on welfare, and unemployment lower than when we came to office, and we will have 2 million more jobs than in 2010—an economic plan that is working and a Government who are seeking a job-rich recovery for all.
	Let me turn now to the forecasts for Government borrowing and debt. When this Government came into office, the deficit was 11% of GDP. That was the highest level in our peacetime history. One pound in every four was being borrowed, and a former Chancellor and a former Prime Minister have now joined the consensus that spending was too high. The borrowing posed a huge risk to the economic stability and credibility of the United Kingdom, and we have taken many difficult decisions to bring that deficit down—every one contested and opposed.
	I can report today, however, that the effort is paying off. The OBR uses a measure of what it calls “underlying public sector net borrowing”, which excludes the impact of the Royal Mail pension scheme and asset purchase facility transfers. I can tell the House that this underlying measure of the deficit, like the other deficit measure, has been revised down substantially since March. From the 11% back in 2010, the underlying deficit now falls to 6.8% this year, instead of the 7.5% the OBR forecast back in March. It then falls to 5.6% next year, then 4.4%, 2.7% and, in 2017-18, 1.2%. By 2018-19, on this measure, the OBR does not expect a deficit at all. Instead, it expects Britain to run a small surplus. These numbers mean that the Government will meet their fiscal mandate to bring the structural current budget into balance and meet it one year early.
	Let me turn to the forecasts for cash borrowing on this same underlying basis. At the autumn statement last year, there were repeated predictions that borrowing would go up. Instead, borrowing is down—and down significantly more than was forecast. In their last year in office, the previous Government borrowed £158 billion. This year, we will borrow £111 billion, which is £9 billion less than was feared in March. That falls next year to £96 billion, then down to £79 billion in 2015-16, £51 billion the year after and £23 billion the year after that. So we are set to borrow £73 billion less over the period than was forecast in March. That means that we are borrowing the equivalent of £2,500 less for every household in this country.
	In 2018-19, on this cash measure too, the OBR forecasts that the Government will not have to borrow anything at all. Instead, we will run a small cash surplus. Of course, this will only happen if we go on working through our long-term plan, delivering the reductions in the deficit we plan this year, next year and in the three
	years after. If we gave up on the plan now, we would be saddled with a deficit still among the highest in Europe, and the Government side of the House is not prepared to take that risk.
	While the deficit remains, it adds to our national debt every year. The OBR today expects debt this year to come in at 75.5% of GDP, which is £18 billion lower than was forecast in March. It rises to 78.3% next year, before peaking at 80% the next year—5% lower than forecast at the Budget. In 2016-17, it then falls, albeit slightly, to 79.9%; then falls again to 78.4% and then to 75.9%. By 2017-18, debt is over £80 billion pounds lower than forecast in March. The supplementary debt target is for debt to be falling in 2015-16. At the Budget, the OBR forecast debt to be falling in 2017-18. It is now forecast to fall in 2016-17, which is one year earlier.
	But let me enter this note of caution. The OBR is clear that this is a cyclical improvement. The forecast for the continuing fall in the structural deficit has not improved. The structural deficit is the borrowing that stays behind even when the economy improves. Thanks to our actions, it has fallen from the 8.7% we inherited to 4.4% today—more than in any other major advanced economy. It goes on falling, but no faster than was previously expected because, as we have always argued, the central task of reforming government and controlling spending does not simply dissolve when growth returns. It supports the case we have made all along that economic growth alone was never going to be enough to repair Britain’s broken public finances. An improving economy does not let us off the hook for taking the difficult decisions to make sure that the Government live within their means.
	The single most important economic judgement I make today is this: we will not let up in dealing with our country’s debts; we will not spend the money from lower borrowing; we will not squander the hard-earned gains of the British people. The stability and low mortgage rates, the lower deficit and falling borrowing have been hard won by this country, but let us be clear that they could easily be lost. That is why we must work through our plan to secure the British economy for the long term.
	So this autumn statement is fiscally neutral across the period. Indeed, I can announce today that we will take three new steps to entrench Britain’s commitment to sound public finances. First, we will bring forward next year an updated charter for budget responsibility and ask Parliament to support it. I can say today that both parties of the coalition have agreed that we must ensure that debt continues to fall as a percentage of GDP, including using surpluses in good years, for this purpose. In other words, this time we will fix the roof when the sun is shining.
	We will look to see whether the five-year time horizon of the fiscal mandate could be shorter and even more binding now that the public finances are closer to balance, and we will see how fiscal credibility could be further enhanced by a stronger parliamentary commitment to the path of consolidation already agreed for 2016-17 and 2017-18. The answers will be written into an updated charter for budget responsibility, which will be presented to Parliament a year from now and voted upon.
	The second step we take today to entrench Britain’s commitment to sound public finances is this: we will cap overall welfare spending. Welfare budgets were
	completely out of control when we came to office and the number of households where no one had ever worked nearly doubled. We have taken very difficult decisions to bring benefit bills down; we have saved £19 billion a year for the taxpayer. We need to maintain that discipline. The percentage of spending in the UK subject to fixed spending controls is very low by international standards—at just 50%. So from next year, we will introduce a new cap on total welfare spending.
	I have had representations that the basic state pension should be included within that cap, but that would mean cutting pensions for those who have worked hard all their lives because the costs on, say, housing benefit for young people had got out of control. That is not fair, so we will not include the state pension, which is better controlled over a longer period. We will also exclude from the cap the most cyclical of benefits for jobseekers. All other benefits—from tax credits to income support to the vast majority of housing benefit—will be included in the cap.
	At the beginning of each Parliament, the Chancellor of the day will set the welfare cap for the coming years, and will ask the House of Commons for its support. If the cap is breached, the Chancellor will have to explain why, and hold a vote in the House. The principle is clear: the Government have a responsibility to taxpayers to control their spending on welfare, and Parliament has a responsibility to the country to hold the Government to account for it.
	That brings me to our third step. Ultimately, the test of fiscal credibility is whether you are prepared actually to make the difficult decisions that will keep spending under control. Tight discipline means that most Departments are now living well within their set budgets. This year they are expected to underspend by £7 billion, which is testimony to good financial management. We can therefore be confident in reducing the contingency reserve by £1 billion this year, and reducing departmental budgets by a similar amount in the next two years. That will save a further £3 billion in total. The protections for the NHS and schools will apply, and the security and intelligence agencies and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be exempt. The Barnett formula means that over the next two years, the budgets for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will see a net increase. We will not apply those additional savings to local authorities, because we expect them to freeze council tax next year.
	This year, Britain becomes the first G8 country to meet our promise to the poorest in the world to spend 0.7% of our national income on development., but we do not have to increase the budget of the Department for International Development further in order to do that. The effectiveness of the British Government’s aid effort in the Philippines, matched by the generosity of the British public, is a reminder of what marks us out as a nation, and we in this country can be very proud of it.
	We are also immeasurably proud of the work of Britain’s armed forces. As they wind down their operations in Afghanistan, the budget that we spend there is also falling fast, so we can reduce the military special reserve by a further £900 million this year while still funding all operational costs. To reflect our society’s debt of gratitude to our servicemen and women and their families, I want to make a further £100 million of LIBOR fines available to our brilliant military charities, and to extend that
	support to those who care for the work of our police, fire and ambulance services. I think the whole House will agree that the terrible events in Glasgow this weekend, and the work that those services are doing right now to cope with the adverse weather conditions, remind us how much we owe to them.
	Discipline with the public finances means more than just words. It means making difficult decisions, and being prepared to stick to them. It means using surpluses in good years to keep debt falling, so that we fix that roof when the sun is shining. It means capping welfare to keep it under control, and, when we do want to spend more money, it means finding extra ways in which to pay for it.
	One of the biggest single items of Government spending is the basic state pension. I am proud to be in a Government who have introduced a triple lock that ensures a fair and generous increase in the state pension every year for those who have worked hard all their lives. I can confirm that next April the state pension will rise by a further £2.95 a week. That increase, and the other increases that have been made under this Government, mean that pensioners will be more than £800 better off every year. I can announce that we are also going to offer current pensioners an opportunity to make voluntary national insurance contributions to boost their income in retirement, and that we will extend that opportunity to those who reach pension age before the introduction of the single-tier pension. That will help those who have not built up much entitlement to the additional state pension, especially women and the self-employed.
	However, we must also guarantee that the basic state pension is affordable in the future, even as people live longer and our society grows older, and the only way in which to do that is to ensure that the pension age keeps pace with life expectancy. The Pensions Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, puts in place reviews of the pension age every five years. We have set the principle that will underpin those reviews. We think that a fair principle is that, as now, people should expect to spend up to a third of their adult lives in retirement. Based on the latest life expectancy figures, applying that principle would mean an increase in the state pension age to 68 in the mid-2030s and to 69 in the late 2040s. The exact dates will be set by the future statutory reviews and in line with the most up-to-date demographic data, of which the next update is published next week. This is one of those difficult decisions that Governments have to take if they are serious about controlling the public finances. Future taxpayers will be saved around £500 billion pounds. Young people will know that our country can afford to give them a proper pension when they retire. That is this generation fulfilling its obligations for fiscal responsibility to the next generation, not saddling them with the debts and the decisions we were not prepared to deal with ourselves.
	Having sound public finances also means making sure that we collect the taxes that are due. Most wealthy people pay their taxes and make a huge contribution to funding our public services; the latest figures show that 30% of all income tax is paid by just 1% of taxpayers. We have given incentives to enterprise and cut punitive tax rates, and this year the rich pay a greater share of the nation’s income taxes than was the case in any year under the last Labour Government. But alongside those paying the most tax are those who try to avoid paying
	their fair share of tax. So today we set out in detail the largest package of measures to tackle tax avoidance, tax evasion, fraud and error so far this Parliament. Together it will raise over £9 billion over the next five years.
	We are going to tackle the growth of intermediaries disguising employment as false self-employment, depriving work forces of basic employment rights such as the minimum wage in a bid to avoid employer national insurance. We will halve the final period exemption for capital gains tax private residence relief. We will end the abuse of dual contracts, offshore oil and gas contracting, derivatives linked to profits and share buy-backs. And we will ensure the tax advantages of partnerships are not abused either. We are introducing a new, limited power that requires people to pay up front their taxes where the scheme they used has already been struck down by the courts. We are going to strengthen Whitehall’s capacity to prevent error and tackle fraud in the benefit and tax credit systems, and expand its efforts to recover money that is owed.
	There is one personal tax change we make today which is not about avoidance, but is about fairness. Britain is an open country that welcomes investment from all over the world, including investment in our residential property. But it is not right that those who live in this country pay capital gains tax when they sell a home that is not their primary residence while those who do not live here do not—that is unfair. So from April 2015, we will introduce capital gains tax on future gains made by non-residents who sell residential property here in the UK.
	I can also announce that from 1 January next year the rate of the bank levy will rise to 0.156% and its base will be broadened in ways we have consulted on. The levy will raise £2.7 billion in 2014-15 and £2.9 billion each year from 2015-16. The country stood behind the banks in the crisis, and now it is right that they support the country in recovery.
	Having a Government who live within their means is essential to secure the economy for the long term, but it is not sufficient. Britain has to earn its way in the world. Our infrastructure needs to be overhauled. We have to help our businesses compete. Above all, our young people need the skills to succeed in the modern world. This autumn statement takes the next big steps in all these areas.
	Let me start with infrastructure. We are going to be spending more on capital as a proportion of national income on average over this decade than over the whole period of the last Government. That has involved making tough choices about priorities in spending and sticking to them. But that is not the most difficult decision in this area. We have to decide whether we are serious as a country about competing in the modern world and say to people that we need the new roads and the new railways, including the northern hub and High Speed 2. We have to say that we are prepared to push the boundaries of scientific endeavour, including in controversial areas, because Britain has always been a pioneer. We should say that the country that was the first to extract oil and gas from deep under the sea should not turn its back on new sources of energy such as shale gas because it is all
	too difficult, and the country with the world’s first civil nuclear programme should not be a country that says we can do this no longer.
	Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and Lord Deighton published the update to the national infrastructure plan. That includes a co-operation agreement with Hitachi on the next nuclear power station in Anglesey and a deal with the insurance industry to invest at least £25 billion in UK infrastructure. We published the strike prices that support long-term investment in offshore wind and prioritise it over onshore wind. Today we go further, with a commitment to invest in quantum technology, and a new tax allowance to encourage investment in shale gas that halves tax rates on early profits. In the week in which Professor Peter Higgs travels to Stockholm to collect his Nobel prize for physics, we commit to build a new centre in his name at Edinburgh university, because science is a personal priority of mine.
	Some of the most important infrastructure for British families is housing and we must confront this simple truth: if we want more people to own a home, we have to build more homes. The Office for Budget Responsibility is absolutely right today to draw attention to the weakness of housing supply in this country. The good news is that the latest survey data showed residential construction growing at its fastest rate for a decade. Our hard-won planning reforms are delivering a 35% increase in approvals for new homes, but we need to do more.
	This week, we are announcing a billion pounds of loans to unblock large housing developments on sites in Manchester and Leeds and across the country. We will increase the housing revenue account borrowing limit by £300 million. Aspiration is not only for people who can afford their own home. We want to regenerate some of our most run-down urban housing estates. Councils will sell off the most expensive social housing, so they can house many more families for the same money. We are going to give working people in social housing a priority right to move if they need to for a job.
	Right-to-buy applications have doubled under this Government, and we will expand it more. The very same spirit of aspiration that underpins right to buy is what drives this Government with Help to Buy. It is not enough to build more houses if families who can afford mortgages do not have the large deposits that the banks have demanded. Help to Buy is now helping thousands to own their own home. I can today announce that Aldermore and Virgin, two challenger banks, expect to join the scheme this month.
	Help to aspiring families and building more homes: that is what we stand for. We must also avoid the mistakes of the past decade. We want a responsible recovery. That is why I am the first Chancellor to give the Bank of England the responsibility and the power not only to monitor overall debt levels, but to take action to deal with asset bubbles if they threaten our stability.
	We want a functioning, stable housing market. The OBR’s latest house price forecast today, while higher, still has real house prices 3.1% lower in 2018 than at their peak in 2007. Together with Governor Carney, I acted last week to focus the funding for lending scheme away from mortgages on to small business lending, where its support is still needed. It is precisely because the authorities can act in this targeted and pre-emptive
	way, and because our public finances are under control, that the Bank can keep overall interest rates lower for longer and support the rest of the economy.
	Investing in the physical infrastructure of our country is critical to our future. But in this global economy, it is better education and skills that hold the key to long-term national success. This week’s programme for international student assessment—PISA—scores show how much ground this country has to make up. My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is doing more to transform school standards and raise the aspirations of pupils from the poorest families than anyone who has done that job before him. His expansion of free schools and academies has the full backing of this Chancellor.
	We also know that children do better at school when they have a proper meal inside them. This autumn statement has found the financial resources to fund the expansion of free school meals to all school children in reception, year 1 and year 2, announced by the Deputy Prime Minister and supported by me.
	But today we also focus on what happens when our young people leave school—and we do more to help them. First, we will not abandon those who leave school with few or no qualifications. At present, Jobcentre Plus does almost nothing to help 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in work or education. We will change that and will now fund the jobcentres to support these very young adults to find an apprenticeship or a traineeship.
	Without basic maths or English, there is a limited chance any young person will be able to stay off welfare, so we are taking a new approach. Starting in some areas at first, anyone aged 18 to 21 signing on without those basic skills will be required to undertake training from day one or lose their benefits. If they are still unemployed after six months, they will have to start a traineeship, take work experience or do a community work placement—and if they do not turn up, they will lose their benefits.
	A culture of worklessness becomes entrenched when young people can leave school and go straight on to the dole with nothing expected in return. That option is coming to an end in our welfare system.
	The second reform is to apprenticeships. We have doubled the number of apprenticeships and now we will transform the way they are provided by funding employers directly through HMRC. I can tell the House there will now be an additional 20,000 higher apprenticeships over the next two years. I can also announce a big expansion of start-up loans, through which a new generation of entrepreneurs is being created: 50,000 more people will be helped to fulfil their aspiration to start their own business. We are extending the new enterprise allowance, too.
	This year is also the 50th anniversary of the Robbins report, which challenged the nonsense that university was suitable only for a small few. In 1963, Robbins said:
	“Courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so.”
	That was true then, and I believe it should remain true today. Our reforms to student loans, difficult as they were, have put our universities on a secure footing. Some predicted that applications from students from
	poor backgrounds would fall. Instead, I can report that this year we have had the highest ever proportion of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds applying to university.
	But there is still a cap on aspiration. Each year, about 60,000 young people who have worked hard at school, got the results, want to go on learning and want to take out a loan to pay for it are prevented from doing so because of an arbitrary cap. That makes no sense when we have a lower proportion of people going to university than even the United States, let alone countries such as South Korea. Access to higher education is a basic tenet of economic success in the global race, so today I can announce that next year we will provide 30,000 more student places, and the year after we will abolish the cap on student numbers altogether.
	Extra funding will be provided to science, technology, and engineering courses. The new loans will be financed by selling the old student loan book, allowing thousands more to achieve their potential.
	Education underpins opportunity. It is business that provides those opportunities and the best way to help business is by lowering the burden of tax. KPMG’s report last week confirmed for the second year running that Britain has the most competitive business tax system in the world. Some in this House suggest that our response to this good news should be to increase corporation tax from 20%. Today, we publish the first of our studies into the dynamic effects of tax changes that shows that our corporation tax cuts increase investment and raise productivity—so much so that more than half the cost of the tax cut to the Treasury will be recovered because of higher growth. Putting up corporation tax hits investment, cuts productivity, costs jobs and raises much less. We thank the hon. Members for their submission, but we think it would be economic madness to pursue it.
	Quite the reverse, today we take further steps to make our business taxes yet more competitive. The Budget announcement that we would abolish stamp duty on AIM shares was applauded around the world. Today, we also abolish stamp duty for shares purchased in exchange traded funds to encourage those funds to locate in the UK. We are making our successful film tax relief even more generous, and looking to extend the principle, including to regional theatre. We set out major reforms to encourage employee ownership of the kind that makes John Lewis such a success. And from April, we will be one of the first countries in the world to introduce a new tax relief for investment in social enterprises and new social impact bonds. I want to thank Sir Ronnie Cohen and the charities Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), for all their help in putting this innovative scheme together.
	Business rates impose a heavy burden on businesses of all sizes. Today, we will help ease that burden—and here is how. The last Government wanted to halve small business rates relief—a relief that helps cut rates bills for half a million companies and means a third of a million of the smallest businesses pay no rates at all. If we had followed that plan, small businesses would have faced a rate increase of up to £3,375. So we have rejected that plan. Instead, we have extended that rate relief scheme year after year. It was due to expire next April. We will now extend it for another whole year. We
	have also listened to the small business groups and will relax the rules that discourage these firms from expanding and opening extra premises.
	But that does not go far enough. All businesses are expecting rates to rise by 3.2% next year. Instead, I will cap the inflation increase in business rates for all premises at 2% from next April. We will also allow businesses to pay their rates in 12 monthly instalments. We will clear almost all the backlog of valuation appeals by July 2015, with reform of business rates on the agenda for 2017 revaluation.
	There is one group of businesses that has found the recession especially hard, as it has coincided with a rising challenge from the internet that is only getting stronger. These are our local retailers—the shops, the pubs and the cafés that make up our high streets across Britain. With small business Saturday this weekend, I want the Government to do all we can to help them. We are already changing the planning rules to help town centres compete. To get the vacant shops that blight too many town centres to open again, I am introducing a new reoccupation relief that will halve the rates for new occupants.
	But we can do more, and I want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) and many others for their campaign. Like them, I also want to help those who have struggled hard on our high streets—often working long hours for not enough in return. So I can announce today that for the next two years every retail premise in England with a rateable value of up to £50,000 will get a discount on their business rates. This discount will be worth £1,000 off their bills.
	This is what we offer: business rates capped; for the smallest firms, no rates at all; and help for the high street, with £1,000 off for small shops, pubs, cafés and restaurants across our country. The people in these businesses epitomise the hard-working values this Government supports, and we are backing British businesses all the way.
	And we are backing British families. Next April, the personal allowance will reach £10,000. This Government are delivering an income tax cut worth up to £700 a year to over 25 million hard-working people. Under the last Government, council tax doubled. We are now helping councils freeze it for the whole of this Parliament. Tax-free child care is being introduced and free school meals are on their way. But there is more we are doing to help.
	This autumn statement confirms that from April 2015 we will introduce a new transferable tax allowance for married couples. Available to all basic rate taxpayers, it enables people to transfer £1,000 of their personal allowance to their wife, husband or civil partner. It is just a start. And I confirm today that we will introduce a new uprating mechanism that ensures the new married couples tax allowance is automatically increased in proportion to the personal allowance. Four million families will benefit, many of them among the poorest working families in our country. This measure, along with the others we take today, ensures that across this
	Parliament our policies are progressive, showing that we are all in this together, with the very rich paying the most.
	We are also helping families with their energy bills, not with a transparent con by pretending that we can control the world oil price, but instead by focusing on the thing that Government can and should control—the levies and charges that previous Energy Secretaries piled on bills. [Interruption.] This week we deliver on the promise made by the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The statement must be heard.

George Osborne: This week we deliver on the promise made by the Prime Minister to roll back those levies. The result: an average of £50 off family bills. We are doing this in a way that supports the lowest income families, reduces carbon, supports investment in our energy infrastructure and, as the document shows, does not add a penny to the tax bills that families pay. My political philosophy is clear: instead of penalising people with more taxes and more regulation, give them incentives by reducing their taxes and their bills. As I have often said, going green does not have to cost the earth.
	That brings me on to fuel duty. We inherited from the previous Government the hated fuel duty escalator that would have inflicted hardship on families and small firms alike. Instead of those rises, we abolished the escalator, and we have cut and then frozen fuel duty. I have had further representations from many, many hon. Friends, from my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who is a champion of the people he represents.
	I said earlier this autumn that if we could find the money, I would like to go on freezing duty. Today I can report that because we have taken difficult decisions to control the public finances, I can deliver on that promise. Next year’s fuel duty rise will be cancelled. Instead of petrol taxes going up by 2p a litre, they will stay frozen. That means that, compared with the previous Government’s plans, petrol will be 20p a litre less. That is £11 less every time you fill up—a saving for drivers over this Parliament of £680, and double that for a small business with a van.
	Cancelling fuel duty rises has been a major priority of the Government—a £22 billion demonstration that we are on the side of hard-working people in this country. A married couples allowance; £50 off energy bills. We are helping those who drive a car and we are helping those who get the train, too. Fares next January were going to go up by 1% above inflation. We are going to keep average fares flat in real terms.
	We on the Government Benches know that there is one thing more than any other that has supported families through these difficult times, and that is being in work. At the heart of our economic plan is support for the creation of more jobs. That is why we opposed the last Government’s plan to increase the jobs tax. That is why we reversed the most damaging part of that increase in the very first Budget after we came to office. That is also why in the last Budget I introduced the employment allowance, which eliminates the jobs tax for half a million small businesses. And that is why we will go further still. We are going to abolish the jobs tax
	on young people under the age of 21. Employer national insurance contributions will be removed altogether on a million and a half jobs for young people. We are not going to leave young people behind as the economy grows. We are going to have a responsible recovery for all.
	The cost for a business of employing a young person on a salary of £12,000 will fall by over £500. For someone on £16,000, that is over £1,000 off. I want to commend my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree (Mr Newmark) and for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and the Million Jobs campaign for highlighting this issue. The change requires legislation. It will come into force in April 2015, and it will not apply beyond the upper earnings limit.
	This country is working through its long-term plan: bringing down the deficit and dealing with the debt; spending less on welfare and making the big decisions on infrastructure; living within our means and cutting tax on business; making work pay and letting people keep more of what they earn; and with confidence in the next generation, as they make their way in education and in the workplace. This statement shows that the plan is working. It is a long-term plan for a grown-up country. But the job is not done. By doing the right thing, we are heading in the right direction. Britain is moving again. Let us keep going.

Edward Balls: The whole country will have seen today that for all his boasts and all his breathtaking complacency—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House—[Interruption.] Order. I do not need any sedentary comments from either side of the House. What I said in respect of the Chancellor applies equally in respect of the shadow Chancellor. Let us have a bit of calm and a bit of order. Following the response, as usual, I will facilitate the widest possible opportunity for questioning. Let us have courtesy, please.

Edward Balls: The whole country will have seen today that for all his boasts and all his utterly breathtaking complacency, the Chancellor is in complete denial about the central fact defining this Government in office: under this Chancellor and this Prime Minister, for most people in our country living standards are not rising, but falling year on year.
	Let me ask the Chancellor to demonstrate, because he did not mention it, that he is not completely out of touch with the cost of living crisis facing millions of people in our country. Can he confirm that, on average, working people in our country are £1,600 a year worse off than they were when the Government came into office in 2010, that prices will continue to rise faster than wages this year and into next year and that, as a result, people will be worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010? [Interruption.] Is not this the truth: after three damaging years of flatlining, after the slowest recovery for over 100 years—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. However long it takes, the response—[Interruption.] Order. Mr Morris, I do not require your assistance. Calm down. Take up yoga, or
	whatever is necessary. However long it takes, the response, like the statement, will be heard. The sooner Members on both sides of the House grasp that very simple fact, the better.

Edward Balls: There is a cost of living crisis, even if Government Members will not admit it in this House, and we all know why: after three damaging years of flatlining and the slowest recovery for over 100 years, from a Chancellor and a Prime Minister who said that we were all in this together and then gave a huge tax cut to millionaires—do we not know the truth?—working people are not better off under the Tories, but worse off. For all their complacent boasts, after three damaging and wasted years for most people in the constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House there is still no recovery at all.
	Let me ask the Chancellor about the promises he made to the House on growth and living standards three years ago. He said then that the economy would grow by more than 8.4% by the end of this year, but even after today’s welcome upward revisions, growth is set to be half that—lower growth than he forecast in 2010 this year, next year, and the year after as well.
	Did not the Chancellor pledge to get the banks lending, yet net lending to business is now down by £100 billion compared with May 2010? Did he not make the No. 1 test of his economic credibility keeping the triple A credit rating, yet it has been downgraded not once but twice? As for his promise to balance the books by 2015, did he not confirm today that in 2015 he will not be balancing the books but borrowing £79 billion? For all his smoke and mirrors—[Interruption.] For all his smoke and mirrors, he is borrowing £198 billion more than he planned in 2010: more borrowing to pay for three years of economic failure; more borrowing in just three years under this Chancellor than under the previous Government in 13 years. He used to say that he would balance the books in 2015; now he wants us to congratulate him on saying he will do it in 2019. With this Government, it is clearly not just the badgers that move the goalposts.
	On energy bills, after the Government’s panicked and half-baked attempt to steal Labour’s clothes, we know that they are not only not very good at shooting badgers, but not very good at shooting other people’s foxes either. What is the truth? For three months, the Leader of the Opposition has been calling for an energy price freeze, and did the Chancellor announce an energy price freeze? No, he did not. Can he confirm that while the energy companies have already announced price rises of £120 this year, his policy will still see energy prices rise by £70 this winter? Under this Chancellor, the only freeze this winter will be for millions of families and pensioners with rising bills struggling to heat their homes. Does he really think he can get away with tinkering at the edges, moving green levies his own party introduced off the bills and on to the taxpayer, and—surprise, surprise—letting the energy companies completely off the hook? They are not paying a penny. Does he not realise that for millions of hard-pressed families, pensioners and businesses across our country, nothing less than a freeze will do? Rather than hard-pressed taxpayers, it should be the excess profits of the energy companies that pick up the tab.
	As for the Prime Minister’s flagship policy for families—a tax break for marriage—why will not the Chancellor admit the truth and tell the Prime Minister that the policy will not even help the families the Prime Minister says it will? His own Treasury Minister has let the cat out of the bag: I have it here in black and white. The Exchequer Secretary says that just under one third of married couples will get the married couples tax allowance. Just one in six families with children will benefit. Contrary to the Prime Minister’s claim in this House a few weeks ago, a married couple where both are paying basic-rate income tax will get no benefit at all. [Interruption.] No wonder his own Chancellor of the Exchequer has this week told The Daily Telegraph that he thinks the Prime Minister’s policy is
	“a turkey of an idea”.
	The Chancellor thinks the Prime Minister’s policy is a turkey. Merry Christmas, Prime Minister, Merry Christmas! [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. It is very simple; this just lengthens the proceedings. It does not bother me; I very much enjoy chairing the proceedings. [Interruption.] I think that what Members on both sides of the House will wish to consider is how this conduct is regarded by the public we are here to represent.

Edward Balls: I think that on this one the Chancellor is right—it is a turkey of an idea.
	On the cost of living crisis, on energy, on supporting families, this Government just do not get it. There is a reason why this Prime Minister and this Chancellor—the Chancellor said it in his statement—believe that people are better-off: it is that the people on their Christmas card lists have seen their bonuses rise and their taxes cut. They have shown that they are willing to stand up for the interests of the energy companies—[Interruption.] We have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who will stand up for the energy companies, stand up for the hedge funds, and stand up for people earning over £150,000—who get a tax cut—but will not stand up for millions of families and pensioners in our country: people struggling with rising energy bills, falling wages, and rising child care costs.
	We all know and agree that rising life expectancy means we are going to have to work longer and that the Chancellor’s failure on growth and the deficit means more tough spending decisions in the next Parliament. But when the country is crying out for a Government who will work with business to promote investment and wealth creation and build an economy that works for the many and not just the few, does this Chancellor really think he can get away with tinkering at the edges, letting the free market rip, and waiting for the wealth to trickle down? Is not what the Chancellor has announced today the clearest evidence yet that the Government just do not understand the scale of the challenge we face to get an investment-led recovery that works for all and not just a few—a strong recovery built to last?
	Let me ask the Chancellor—[Interruption.] With the permission of the House, let me ask the Chancellor this: with house building under this Government at its lowest level since the 1920s, does he not see that his Help to Buy scheme to boost mortgage demand can deliver a
	strong and balanced recovery only if he does what we and the IMF have urged and invests in housing supply—more affordable homes.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	Government Members sneer at building more affordable homes. Can the Chancellor tell the House why infrastructure output has actually fallen by 15% since 2010? No wonder the CBI is so upset.
	On investment, why has not the Chancellor used the money from the planned increase in spectrum licence fees to endow a proper business investment bank? On tax avoidance, will he tell the House why HMRC has reported that the amount of uncollected tax actually rose last year?
	Almost 1 million young people are unemployed; a record number who want to work full time are being forced to accept part-time work; the Work programme is a flop; the welfare bill is rising; and, as we have learned today, universal credit is a complete and utter shambles. There was no mention of universal credit in the statement: IDS—in deep shambles.
	Is it not the fact that, for all the shambles and chaos and rising welfare bills, what the Chancellor has announced on youth unemployment is too little, too late? There will be help for under-21s only and only in the last weeks of this Government in 2015. Why is he not being more ambitious? Why will he not repeat the successful tax on bank bonuses to pay for a compulsory job for all young people—a job they will take or lose?
	Why will the Chancellor not remove the winter allowance from the richest 5% of pensioners? Why will he not reverse his tax cut for hedge funds and protect disabled people in our country by scrapping the unfair and perverse bedroom tax this Prime Minister introduced? Why will he not go further on the bank levy and expand free child care for working parents, make work pay and use it to help working parents?
	Is not this the truth: will the Chancellor confirm that even after what he has announced today on fuel duty and increases in the personal allowance, his VAT rise, his cuts to tax credits and his cuts to child benefit mean that, on average, families with children are worse off because of his Budgets? That is the truth—giving with one hand, taking away much, much more with the other.
	With energy bills still rising this winter, no real action to tackle the cost of living crisis, no proper plan to earn our way to rising living standards for all, surely Britain can do better than this.
	This complacent Chancellor sits there and thinks he deserves a pat on the back. I have to say that, with bank bonuses rising and millionaires enjoying a big tax cut, this is a policy that is working for a few. But as this autumn statement shows, with this out-of-touch Chancellor and Prime Minister, hard-working people are worse off under the Tories.

George Osborne: The Leader of the Opposition and I agree on one thing: that was a complete nightmare. The only turkey around here is the speech just given. As for denial, the man who said that borrowing would not come down, unemployment would not come down and growth would not happen, and who refuses to apologise for what he did to the British economy, is the very epitome of denial. That is the central problem with his response and, indeed, his whole economic framework.
	Not only did he predict that the recovery would never come; he went out of his way to say that if we stuck with our plan it could never come.
	This is what the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) said in March this year:
	“I’ve said consistently…unless there is a government led plan for confidence, for growth and jobs, the economy will get worse but also the deficit won’t come down, it’ll go up”.
	He predicted that the economy would get worse and the deficit would go up and that 1 million jobs would be lost, but the economy is growing, 1 million jobs have been created and the deficit has gone down. I have an explanation for what has happened: we do have a Government-led plan for confidence, for growth and jobs. It is our plan, it is working and the right hon. Gentleman should have welcomed it.
	The extraordinary thing about the right hon. Gentleman’s performance was that he could not bring himself to welcome any of the better economic news. He has built his whole proposition as shadow Chancellor on the basis that our effort to deal with the public finances would make that growth impossible. That makes me wonder what the right hon. Gentleman has been up to with his time, but he gave a clue in a newspaper interview this week. He said that he had to cancel his grade 3 piano exam, because it was
	“exactly the time when George Osborne is standing up to do the Autumn Statement!”
	I think he should have gone ahead with the “Chopsticks” rendition. The newspaper article also says that he asked Miss Perrin, his piano teacher:
	“‘If I go wrong can I start again?’ She said: ‘I think it’s probably best to keep going.’”
	He takes the same approach to economic policy as he does to his piano. The final thing he said is that he hopes to reach grade 8 piano over the next four years. After his performance today, I can see why he expects to have a lot more time to practise.
	Let me turn to the points the right hon. Gentleman raised. The central point is that it is not possible to have a cost of living plan without an economic plan. Labour’s silence on the economy goes to the heart of its weakness. It cannot talk about its record, because it had the biggest recession ever. It cannot talk about the deficit, because it has no plan to deal with it. The right hon. Gentleman cannot even talk about infrastructure and his much vaunted plan for a cross-party consensus, because he was the person who tried to break the consensus on the biggest project of all. He cannot talk about housing, because there were 420,000 fewer affordable homes at the end of the Labour Government. He cannot talk about business rates, because they went up 71% under Labour. He cannot talk about support for business, because he wants to put taxes up on business. He cannot ask about standing up to the powerful, because this is the week that Labour caved in to the trade unions. He cannot ask about jobs, because he wants more jobs taxes. And he cannot ask about banking and financial services, because the person Labour hired to advise it was the Reverend Flowers.
	The right hon. Gentleman has said that he would be the co-operative Chancellor. Let me end by saying that that is exactly what he would be: borrowing more than he can afford, with catastrophic management of the finances, and a deluded leadership preaching one thing
	and doing another. It is hard-working people who will pick up the price if it blows up again. He cannot welcome the economic recovery because he is the biggest risk to economic recovery.

Andrew Tyrie: Does the Chancellor agree that the confidence now returning to the economy is a vindication of the Government’s decision to stand firm on reducing the deficit? Is it not now absolutely crucial that Britain sticks with this policy as the economy recovers, reduces the size of the state and creates room for the economy to grow, and with it, when resources allow—and only when resources allow—to reduce taxes?

George Osborne: I thank my hon. Friend for his support and his observation about what is happening in the economy. I complete agree with him. One of the things I said in the speech was that of course risks remain, the job is not done, productivity remains too low and we want it to grow. That requires economic reform and reducing taxes on business, which is what we have done again today.

Alistair Darling: I notice that the Chancellor’s growth forecasts follow a very familiar pattern of being fairly flat and then rising to, I think, 3.7% in four years’ time. That, of course, drives his assumptions in relation to borrowing and debt. Does he agree that risks remain not just in the eurozone, but here at home? In connection with that, could he tell me what the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting in relation to North sea oil revenues over the next few years, because there are some people who believe that that is a limitless source of funding for whatever they happen to be promising in the coming referendum? Finally, could he also tell me the source of the funding for the very welcome centre at Edinburgh university?

George Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman and I are both looking forward to the Higgs centre at Edinburgh university, which is a reminder of the scientific collaboration that can happen across the entire United Kingdom. We are, of course, incredibly proud of Professor Higgs.
	The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about oil and gas receipts in the forecast from the entirely independent Office for Budget Responsibility. Its forecast today for the whole of the UK is that oil and gas receipts will be £3.5 billion in 2016. That compares with the £6.8 billion on which the SNP Scottish Government have based their premises and their claims for independence. It is twice as much as the OBR has independently assessed, and that is another example of how they are not being straight with people about the facts in relation to independence. It would of course mean that there was a black hole in an independent Scotland’s public finances that would cost the Scottish people £1,000 each. It is yet another example of how they are not being straight; the independent facts refute their case.

John Redwood: Will the Chancellor confirm that the independent official forecast shows that the more successful he is in future years in curbing spending and cutting borrowing, the faster the economy will grow, just as America has shown that by cutting the deficit, it can get more growth?

George Osborne: I agree with my right hon. Friend that unless we have a sustainable state, with borrowing and public finances under control, it will be very difficult to get the stability during which sustained growth happens. We have seen that in many of our neighbours, and that was the risk facing the United Kingdom in 2010. We have absolutely demonstrated that we can stick with a plan to deal with the deficit and take hard decisions on public finances, and see job creation and business expansion happen alongside that.

Margaret Hodge: Last year, the Prime Minister told tax avoiders to wake up and smell the coffee. Will the Chancellor explain why in last year’s statement he promised that £3.2 billion would come into our coffers from Swiss bank accounts, yet since April he has managed to collect a meagre £440 million? Will he also explain why the OECD’s head of tax has singled out the UK as the only country giving companies new opportunities to avoid tax by changes in the controlled foreign company rules? When will the Government’s reality match their rhetoric?

George Osborne: First, all receipts from any of these tax measures are now independently audited by the Office for Budget Responsibility, so there is an independent audit. The truth is that some of these taxes turn out to raise less than we hoped, and some raise more. For example, we are getting less from Switzerland, and we are speaking directly with the Swiss Government about that, but the deal with Liechtenstein is bringing in more money than was forecast. Some of the other measures we have taken—for example, to prevent the avoidance of stamp duty on residential property, particularly in London—are raising more money than forecast.
	On the OECD, the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister have led the effort at international level to get international rules on base erosion and profit shifting to make sure that there is a global response to a global problem.

Alan Beith: Do not cutting tax on low pay, helping small business, freezing the petrol tax and getting from recession into growth show what can be achieved when two parties are prepared to work together and take the tough decisions that Labour would not have had the courage to take?

George Osborne: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. In 2010, there was a hung Parliament and the potential for political paralysis in this country, but two political parties from different political traditions came together. It is a remarkable testament to the strength of this Government and the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that we can put together these complicated, difficult autumn statements, with difficult decisions being taken on things such as the pension age, public expenditure in Whitehall and tax avoidance. We can do that together; of course, I would rather do it alone, but that is up to the British people in the next election.

Stewart Hosie: There was such hubris from this Chancellor that he pointed to a 1% rise in GDP this year, when GDP will still be 2.5% smaller than before the crisis; that he pointed to recent falls in unemployment, when there are still 1 million more
	unemployed than before the crisis; and that he said borrowing would fall to £111 billion, when that is £55 billion more than he promised for this year in 2010. That was before the body blow of increasing the retiral age, so that youngsters leaving school this year will have to work for 50 years and will be older than their grandparents are now before they can draw their pension. Given that this Chancellor has failed on every target he has set himself, how can we possibly trust him on anything he has said today, including on oil forecasts?

George Osborne: The central point that Scotland might want to focus on today is that the oil forecasts are independently produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility, so either the SNP believes that Robert Chote has somehow fiddled the numbers to stack the campaign against independence, or the truth is that it is making a false promise to the Scottish people. The SNP is not being straight with people about the public finance position of an independent Scotland, and it is Scottish people who would pay the price if there was such an outcome, but I think that they are beginning to have serious doubts about the claims that the SNP is making.

Andrea Leadsom: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, particularly on removing the jobs tax on young people. Will he confirm that one of the aims of his Budgets has been to ensure that the young people of today do not end up paying for the mess left by Labour?

George Osborne: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank her for what she said. A central part of my Budgets has been to say to the next generation, “We are going to make sure you have the opportunities to succeed. If you have no skills, we will help you to get those skills. If you want vocational work and training, you will get that through apprenticeships. If you want to go to higher education, you will get support from the lifting of the cap on student numbers, which is a huge reform”—and, as she mentioned, to say—“If you want to get into work, we will help you by abolishing the jobs tax on young people.” Dealing with the debts and deficits is also, of course, a huge part of saying to the next generation, “We will not leave you with the problems we weren’t prepared to tackle ourselves.”

Michael Meacher: How can the Chancellor conceivably claim that this recovery is sustainable when business investment is still 25% below the pre-crash level, when only 0.1% of the 0.8% growth in the last quarter came from business investment, when productivity is one of the lowest in the OECD, when real wages have fallen 7% and are still falling, and when exports have still not taken off, despite the 25% fall in the exchange rate, and the deficit on traded goods is still likely to be in excess of £100 billion this year?

George Osborne: As I said in my statement, we need productivity to pick up in order to sustain the economic plan. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we want exports to increase. Exports were badly hit because our main export markets were in recession for much of last year. I agree with him about such things, but we disagree about the route to achieving them. His proposal is to put up a tax on business. I do not understand how
	that would possibly help either investment or exports. Tax increases on businesses would be regarded around the world as a bizarre move by the United Kingdom, and we are certainly not going to do that.

Liam Fox: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on helping us to get out of the debt and deficit horror that was left by the previous Labour Government. In particular, I commend his downward pressure on public expenditure, which is the only way to get us out of the debt interest that has been so crippling. Does he agree that the fact that we will spend more money next year servicing our debt than educating our children is the ultimate monument to socialist economic failure, the likes of which we saw outlined yet again by an Opposition who seem to have learnt absolutely nothing from their own failures?

George Osborne: My right hon. Friend puts his argument incredibly well. He has also argued that the best national security policy a country can have is to make sure that it is dealing with its debts and has sustainable public finances. Debt interest remains far too large a part of the Government’s budget, because the national debt went up so much under Labour. It left us with an 11% budget deficit, which we are now of course bringing down. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that debt interest—the bills of economic failure—is what we were bequeathed by the previous Government.

Dennis Skinner: In the real world, is it not a fact that working people are faced with cuts in real wages, part-time jobs and zero-hours contracts? It is nothing short of purgatory for those who have to work for a living, and a paradise for the bankers. On Reverend Flowers, is it not a bit of a cheek for the Chancellor to talk about the subject of lining people’s nostrils, while at the same he is lining the pockets of the people on millionaire’s row?

George Osborne: The people who sucked up to the bankers and brought the British banking system to its knees are sitting on the Labour Benches. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor shakes his head. He is in denial. He was the City Minister when RBS bought ABN AMRO and when Northern Rock was selling 125% mortgages. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) that working people have paid a very high price for that catastrophic economic failure.

Edward Leigh: In warmly congratulating the Chancellor on putting hard-working families and enterprise growth at the centre of the statement, may I draw his attention to those people in hard-working families who occupy key managerial positions and who typically earn just over £40,000 a year? More and more of those families are being dragged into paying higher rate income tax—perhaps as many as 2 million by the end of this Parliament. I ask him to bear those people in mind because they are the key to our recovery.

George Osborne: I agree with my hon. Friend that we want to help people on middle incomes as well as those on low incomes. Many of the measures, in particular those on fuel duty and rail fares, will help those people. The personal allowance is now passed through so that those who pay the higher rate of income tax, although
	not those who pay the top rate, get the benefit if they earn less than £100,000. The benefit is therefore flowing through to those people as well. That is all part of what we are doing to help working people in both the middle and lower income brackets.

Joan Ruddock: Last year, wholesale energy prices rose by 1.7%, but energy bills rose by more than 9%. Why does the Chancellor think it is appropriate to reduce the number of solid wall insulation tasks for energy companies, thus destroying thousands of newly created jobs, rather than tackling the excessive profits of the greedy energy companies that have their hands in all our pockets?

George Osborne: Of course, it was the Labour Government who left us with six energy companies—[Interruption.] I do think that is relevant, because it is this Government who are seeking the competition that will bring new entrants. Let me address the specific point that the right hon. Lady makes. To compensate for the fact that we are rolling back some of the levies, for example in the energy company obligation, we have set out schemes today that will reward home owners who use energy efficiency measures to improve the efficiency of their home. Those include an additional bonus for solid wall insulation. There is also extra money for public sector organisations and private landlords to make their buildings more efficient. Across the board, we are supporting the insulation industry, but we are doing so in a way that does not penalise people through their electricity and gas bills. That is something that she should support.

Richard Harrington: In Watford, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is aware, unemployment is coming down every month, the number of apprenticeships has doubled in the past two years, a new university technical college is opening, and the Government are investing significant capital expenditure on infrastructure in the shape of the Croxley rail link. It seems that the shadow Chancellor’s policy is to spend more and borrow more, which would lead to exactly the reverse of what has happened in Watford. I hope that the Chancellor can assure me that he will be undeterred by what has been said today by the Opposition and will stick to his policies that support growth.

George Osborne: I want to return the compliment that my hon. Friend has paid me. He has been an outstanding Member of Parliament. His jobs clubs have helped many young people and his offer of work experience is helping people to get on the jobs ladder. The rail measures that we have announced today will help his constituents in Watford. He is right that for Watford, a Labour Government would mean higher unemployment, higher mortgage rates, more borrowing and more debt. That would put Watford and the rest of the country back into the economic mess we are taking them out of.

John McDonnell: Whatever one’s view of the past, there are worrying signs that the bonus culture is returning to the City, with large payouts, share distributions and high dividend payments disguising what were formerly bonuses. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make it clear that the Government stand ready to introduce further measures to control the bonus culture? I believe that they would have the support of the whole House in doing so.

George Osborne: I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. He put his question in a very measured way. We do not want to see a return to the uncontrolled bonus culture. We now have a much tougher regime in respect of the transparency of bonuses and clawback, which means that if things go wrong in trades or for a bank, they can get the money back that they have paid people in bonuses. We will take measures to tackle things such as dual contracts, as I mentioned briefly in my statement and as is set out in the document. People who work in the financial industry often split their contract so that they can claim that they are only working for part of the time in the UK to avoid tax. Where there is egregious tax avoidance, we will take steps. I agree with him that the banking system as a whole must be cognisant of the times in which it lives.

Alan Reid: I congratulate the Chancellor on the fuel duty freeze which, as he pointed out, will save motorists 20p per litre compared with Labour’s plans. Will he confirm that motorists on the islands and in remote parts of the mainland in my constituency, such as Appin, will save 25p per litre compared with what the Labour party want to charge them?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend has been an assiduous campaigner for lower fuel duty for his constituents. Indeed, he lobbied me about it in the Division Lobbies yesterday, although we had already taken the decision by then. He draws attention to the rural fuel rebate. That is an important scheme that we have introduced for some of the remote islands in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. We would like to extend the scheme more widely, but we are constrained by European Union rules, which we are challenging. I am glad that the scheme is benefiting some of his constituents.

Bill Esterson: When will the Chancellor accept the reality that for most ordinary people, the economy is about the cost of living crisis? Will he confirm that for 40 of the last 41 months, under his stewardship, prices have risen faster than wages?

George Osborne: Disposable household income is rising. The way to ensure that it continues to rise is to ensure that we have a sustained and responsible economic recovery. The cost of living for the people who live in this country cannot be detached from the performance of the overall economy, as the country sadly discovered when it had the biggest recession in modern history and people’s incomes were hit so badly. Our argument is that the only way to improve living standards in this country is to create jobs, support businesses as they expand and create those jobs, and ensure that the country gets out of its dependence on debt. That is precisely what we are doing.

Mark Hoban: I commend my right hon. Friend for sticking to the course when others suggested that he was going too far and too fast. I am looking forward to voting for the charter for budget responsibility next year. What conclusion does he think people should draw if other parties in the House oppose it?

George Osborne: That will be an interesting opportunity to hear what the Labour party and any other party in this House that does not support our consolidation plans for 2016-17 and 2017-18 would do. If one listens carefully to what the shadow Chancellor says, he makes a promise about current spending in the year in which the election will be held, but he makes no promise about capital spending in that year and says absolutely nothing about spending plans thereafter. We have an important opportunity to entrench this country’s commitment to fiscal consolidation. We will see what the Opposition do.

Caroline Lucas: The Chancellor has turned doublespeak into a new art form today with his mind-boggling claim to be helping the fuel poor by slashing the very programmes they depend on to insulate their homes. Does he accept that this statement is a hugely squandered opportunity to offer lasting relief to the fuel poor by launching a major retrofit programme that would cut bills, cut carbon, and create hundreds of thousands of jobs?

George Osborne: As I said, we are launching a huge scheme to help home movers insulate their homes, help public authorities insulate their buildings, and ensure that private landlords also have incentives. I disagree with the hon. Lady—and, I guess, her philosophy—in that I think such things are better done through incentives and lower taxes than through higher taxes and higher charges that put people off the agenda she wants to promote.

Harriett Baldwin: The Chancellor is an historian of some note. Can he recall an occasion where such good news on jobs and growth was heard in such stony silence by the Labour party?

George Osborne: I did history at university if that is what my hon. Friend is referring to. The extraordinary thing is that the Opposition gambled on there not being an economic recovery, and the shadow Chancellor based his entire reputation not only on the idea that the recovery would not happen, but that it could not happen. As a result, his entire economic edifice has collapsed.

Lilian Greenwood: What advice does the Chancellor have for my 85-year-old constituent, Ennis Peck, whose energy bills will rise to more than £120 a month in the new year? As a direct result of the Chancellor’s capitulation to the energy companies and changes to the energy company obligation, my constituent may no longer get his hard-to-heat, solid-wall home insulated under Nottingham’s greener housing scheme.

George Osborne: If Labour Members now say that they oppose our changes to the ECO, as implied by the hon. Lady’s question, she would be saying that bills should go up for the families she represents. It would be interesting to hear the Labour party clarify its position. The solid-wall insulation industry will be supported by additional incentives under the scheme to help home owners insulate their homes. Surely what we all want, including the hon. Lady, is for bills to come down for people across the country, and that is what will happen, by an average of £50.

Bob Russell: I am delighted that the Chancellor took notice of my speech last week that called for the abolition of business rates on small shops. Now that there is flexibility in the defence budget, is it not time the Government reinstated the modernisation programme for the houses of our brave soldiers and their families?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right that the help for the high street announced today is significant—£1,000 off for shops, pubs, restaurants and cafes. For many shops that will be a lot better than a freeze and will wipe out their rates bill for a couple of years and help them in this difficult time. I know my hon. Friend has campaigned passionately on forces’ houses, and a lot of money is now going to military charities from the LIBOR fines. I know some of the bids being considered specifically involve forces’ housing, so that is one route through which we can ensure they get a better deal.

Jack Dromey: What does the Chancellor have to say to the hard-working, aspirational Erdington family with whom I spoke this morning? The dad has lost his job twice in the past three years, with each new job on a yet lower rate of pay. The mum is a full-time carer for their disabled son. They are increasingly struggling to pay their mortgage and energy bills. They say to me, “Like all our friends, Jack, we don’t recognise the Chancellor’s recovery. Does he understand people like us?”, and in particular they ask, “What planet does the Chancellor live on?”. What does the Chancellor have to say?

George Osborne: I would say to his constituents, and anyone else, that times have been incredibly difficult for this country because we had the deepest recession in this country’s modern history. We had a 7% fall in GDP, which makes the country poorer. I argue that the best way to help that family, and many other families, is by keeping mortgage rates low and ensuring that more and better jobs are created in the economy, and that people can work longer hours if they want to. All those things are happening because we are standing behind our businesses and have control of our public finances. We are now investing in the next generation to ensure that that family can have a brighter future.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Somerset celebrates the fact that the iron Chancellor has shown his true mettle. Following his comments about the dynamic effect on corporation tax, will he consider whether that may have an effect on other taxes, and will he look to the dynamic effects of tax cuts in future statements?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is assiduous in his observation of these matters, and he will have spotted the first step in a quiet revolution. The Treasury has produced a dynamic model for tax reduction—in this case, for corporation tax. At the moment that sits alongside the static, more orthodox, model that the Treasury has always used. That dynamic model—which we have made available and will, of course, be subject to scrutiny—shows that reductions in corporation tax not only increase investment in this country, but as a result
	cost less than the scorecard method we normally suggest. We certainly intend to roll-out that approach, as they say, to other taxes.

Andrew Love: Does the Chancellor accept that the recovery is too dependent on consumer expenditure? With net exports not increasing at all, the EU stagnating in coming years—as the Chancellor indicated—and business investment on the floor, what positive steps is he taking to secure a more balanced recovery?

George Osborne: We want a balanced recovery, as the hon. Gentleman says, and if we look at recent GDP data, the good news is that we have growth in manufacturing, construction and services. The forecast is for business investment and exports to increase, but I agree that those remain challenges, particularly because of what has happened to the source of 50% of our exports—the European continent. That is why the Prime Minister’s trade mission and the expansion I announced today of the export finance guarantee scheme will help Britain’s companies go out to emerging markets and ensure that we are connected to some of the fastest-growing parts of the world.

George Freeman: I welcome the statement and the news that despite the OBR’s calculation that the recession bequeathed to us by the previous Government represented a shocking 7.2% destruction of wealth—the sharpest fall in income since the war—there has in fact been no double dip, and the UK is now the fastest-growing economy in the west. I particularly welcome the creation of three jobs for every one lost in the public sector, the workfare proposals to tackle those not in education, employment or training, and the relief for pensioners and motorists, which will be warmly welcomed in Norfolk. Is not the truth that the tough decisions taken by the Government, and the hard work of the British people in paying off the debts they were left, means that we are building a sustainable recovery, and that the Opposition’s economic policy has been proven to be—balls?

George Osborne: I agree with my hon. Friend which, of course, is not very difficult because that is now the general conclusion. Indeed, I have just heard that a source in the office of the Leader of the Opposition says:
	“Labour has a very strong economic argument to make. Unfortunately it was not made well in the Chamber today.”
	I agree with my hon. Friend about growth in Norfolk and across East Anglia, and there is real commitment to science, which I know is a particular passion of his. As detailed in the document, we intend to set out next year a long-term science strategy so that we can get right the investments in technologies and discoveries that will transform our world.

Barry Gardiner: While the Chancellor was speaking, 30-year-high storm surges have been battering the coast of Britain. If he looks at the national infrastructure plan, he will find that the rate of coastal realignment is happening, in the view of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, at only one fifth of the pace necessary to avoid wholesale flooding that will cost billions of pounds to the economy. Will he
	look at that issue again, and at the funding for flood defences that this year has been reduced from £633 million to £527 million?

George Osborne: I will certainly look at the report that hon. Gentleman mentions. As I said in my speech, it is right for all of us to remember that people are enduring some very adverse weather conditions on the east coast of Britain and our emergency services are working hard to protect them.
	On the broader point, we are investing in flood defences. We have recently increased the investment going into flood defences, and that is all part of the long-term infrastructure plan that this country needs.

Tony Baldry: Is it not correct that there were those who predicted that my right hon. Friend’s policies would lead to a double-dip recession and increases in unemployment, and that it would be impossible to reduce public spending at the same time as restoring the economy to growth? In those predictions, they were wrong, wrong, wrong. The national nightmare would be if the people who made those predictions were allowed anywhere near the door of No. 11 Downing street.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right. It is not just that they got the predictions wrong: it is what that says about their governing philosophy—that they could go on spending and borrowing and running up the deficit with no consequences whatever. Unfortunately they were let near the door of No. 11 in the last decade and that is one of the reasons we are all clearing up this mess at the moment.

Alison McGovern: The Chancellor told us in 2010 that he would close the deficit gap by 2015 and he has told us today that it will be 2018-19. What happened?

George Osborne: As we have now discovered, the recession was even deeper than we knew at the time, with a 7% fall in national income. The financial crisis had an even bigger effect on our economy and its recovery and, at the same time and as is obvious to everyone, our nearest neighbours in the eurozone almost had their currency fall apart and remain in recession. During this period, we were also told repeatedly that if we stuck with our plan and went on trying to reduce the deficit, there would be no economic recovery. We have still had no explanation from a Labour Member as to why we now have a recovery.

Nicola Blackwood: As an Oxford MP, I welcome the Chancellor’s personal commitment to science and his ongoing investment in Oxfordshire science. We already lead the world in key sectors, but does he agree that, as well as funding certainty, future STEM competitiveness will rely on us redoubling our efforts to raise school standards and increase our pool of highly skilled researchers and technicians—women as well as men?

George Osborne: I agree with my hon. Friend. She represents one of the greatest universities in the world. I met yesterday a professor of physics from Oxford university, Professor Walmsley, and he was very welcoming of the
	additional investment we are putting into quantum technology—£270 million in the coming years. It is cutting-edge technology and Oxford is a leader in it. I agree that we need to make sure that kids come out of our schools with the science and maths to take the undergraduate places that turn into the graduate research fellowships and the like. The school reforms being pursued by the Government are the best guarantee of that happening.

Tom Clarke: Is the Chancellor aware that the people I represent will have noticed that in his litany of constituency references, he did not include Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill? Could that be because he is ashamed to admit that if the economy is doing so well he did not take the opportunity to get rid of the hated bedroom tax, or could it be because he did not lay a finger on the excessive profits of energy companies while people are dying of hypothermia?

George Osborne: The people of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and across the country have of course been hit hard by the collapse in the economy in 2008-09 and we have had to take difficult decisions to recover our economy—[Interruption.] I am told by a colleague that unemployment in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency has fallen by 15% in the last 12 months, and that points to the central argument we are making today—if we create jobs and give people opportunities to work, we can improve their standard of living. The only way we can create jobs is if we have economic stability and we control public budgets, including the welfare budget. That requires difficult decisions. If we duck all the difficult decisions, as the last Government did, it is an absolute disaster for the people he represents.

Sarah Newton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on holding his nerve and taking the tough but necessary decisions that are really helping Cornwall. I especially welcome support today for hard-working people on very low incomes who need decent homes. Will he explain a bit more about the plans for building more social housing?

George Osborne: We now have the largest social housing building programme under way for a generation, and of course there were 400,000 fewer social homes at the end of the Labour Government than at the beginning. I said explicitly in my speech that I am for aspiration, whether it is people who can afford to buy their own home or people who cannot, and we should be providing them with decent housing. We are setting aside £300 million for the housing revenue account, and councils, including my hon. Friend’s, will be able to bid for that money if they put forward value-for-money plans to build additional homes and make sure that her hard-working constituents are decently housed.

Sammy Wilson: I welcome the fact that as a result of the Barnett formula Northern Ireland will be better off after the autumn statement. I also welcome the fact that the Chancellor has adopted a policy that has been very successful in Northern Ireland in bringing small businesses into empty premises through rate relief. As growth is so dependent at present on consumption expenditure, much of which has been
	financed by the withdrawal of savings, what will happen under the welfare cap if spending exceeds what he expects? Will those who are on benefit through no fault of their own have to bear the burden through decreased benefit payments?

George Osborne: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman notes that the Northern Ireland Executive will get additional resources because of the way in which the Barnett formula is applied. We are clear that we want to be fair to Northern Ireland. In designing our reoccupation relief we noted how some of Northern Ireland’s schemes to help people reoccupy empty properties have been successful. There is no doubt that empty shops on the high street—partly driven by technological change—are not a good advert for a community.
	If the welfare cap is breached it is up to the Chancellor of the day to come to the House and say either, “I am prepared to breach the welfare cap: let’s have a vote on that”, or, “I am not prepared to breach the welfare cap and here are the measures I am prepared to take”. Those measures would also have to be voted on. In other words, the Chancellor will be accountable to the House for welfare spending, instead of the situation we have had for the past decade, in which welfare spending doubled with no statement ever being made from this Dispatch Box.

Nigel Adams: On behalf of retired coal miners across the country, I thank my right hon. Friend for his recent announcement restoring the concessionary fuel allowance—it was the right and proper thing for him to do. I also commend him for his announcement on business rates, which will be welcomed by small businesses in Selby and Tadcaster and across my constituency. Will he join me in thanking those entrepreneurs and business people in my constituency whose efforts have resulted in a reduction in unemployment of more than 30% since the last election?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend led an effective and powerful campaign on behalf of his constituents and other former miners who had lost their concessionary fuel allowance because of the collapse of the company they had worked for. I stepped in to help because he and others, including my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles), came to talk to me about the matter. It was a simple case of doing the right thing and, thanks to my hon. Friend, we have done it.

Luciana Berger: Will the Chancellor confirm press reports this morning that his free school meal announcement has resulted in a £80 million raid on the school building budget of the Department for Education?

George Osborne: No, the £80 million is additional.

Oliver Colvile: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and thank him for his announcement reminding local authorities that they no longer need to increase council tax. Will he join me in urging my constituents to sign my petition to stop the Labour-controlled city council in Plymouth putting up council tax?

George Osborne: Plymouth council absolutely should freeze council tax. I commend my hon. Friend and his constituents for their campaign to make that happen. We have not included local government in the additional savings we have asked Whitehall for today, precisely so that councils can deliver a council tax freeze. If his council does not deliver a council tax freeze, he can ask Labour why it is putting up the cost of living for his constituents.

Teresa Pearce: There is a housing crisis in London at the moment. The autumn statement says that house prices grew by 9.4% in the first nine months of this year—and that is before Help to Buy comes in, which nearly all forecasters believe will increase prices further. Does the Chancellor believe that spiralling house prices are good for the economy?

George Osborne: I made a point in my statement of saying that we want stable house prices and that we need more homes to be built. I know that that is what the Mayor of London also believes. We have taken steps to give the Bank of England powers to deal with asset bubbles as they develop. That, of course, did not happen five or six years ago, much to our cost. Specifically on the cost of London housing, the early Help to Buy statistics suggest that most of the families who have taken it up are from outside London and the south-east, and are buying properties worth on average £160,000. Help to Buy is therefore helping exactly those we want it to help: aspirational families who can afford a mortgage but cannot currently afford the very large deposit that the problems in our banking system have demanded of them.

David Rutley: I congratulate the Chancellor on sticking to the vital task of reducing the deficit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that calls to increase spending and further to drive up debt come from the same school of economic thought as no return to boom and bust, which was brought to us by the Labour party?

George Osborne: I agree. The school of no more boom and bust gave us the biggest boom and the biggest bust in our history—it was spectacularly unsuccessful. One would think that those who had been through that would have learned their lesson and be keen to see borrowing controlled, public finances in good order and the deficit come down, but they are not. That speaks to a broader truth, which is that in bad times the Opposition say, “Borrow more because the country needs it” and in good times they say, “Borrow more because the country cannot afford it.” What they never say is, “Let’s get a grip on the public finances.”

Michael Connarty: I do not know if the Chancellor does irony, but does he realise that the fundamental structure of his economic plan is similar to the strategy used by RBS, which was revealed in his own Tomlinson report? RBS looked after its big clients and attacked the financial circumstances of its small clients, driving them down into debt, poverty and eventually into bankruptcy, and then selling off their assets. That is, of course, what he is doing at the moment. The small folk in a democracy can vote out
	the Chancellor, unlike with the banks. One question I have raised in writing with the right hon. Gentleman relates to companies moving their assets of their pension funds to offshore funds—for example, in the Channel Islands—and declaring bankruptcy. The workers then have to go to the Pension Protection Fund. When will the Chancellor do something about that? I was told in a letter from his Department that that is legal, but those companies are clearly cheating the taxpayer and cheating their workers.

George Osborne: I am happy to look further at the hon. Gentleman’s point. The rules on pension protection and the pensions regulator are designed to prevent people from deliberately crashing their pension scheme to avoid their liabilities, and for those liabilities to fall on to the state or other companies. I am happy to look at any specific case he has. On his broader point on the economy, unemployment has come down by 11% in his constituency. The measures I announced today—abolishing the jobs tax for young people and the £1,000 discount for shops, cafés and pubs on the high street—are all designed to help small businesses, which are the engine of any recovery.

Charlie Elphicke: May I welcome the investment in infrastructure, particularly flood defences? In east Kent in the next 24 hours, we face a difficult time and the investment in the flood defences in the town of Deal, which I represent, will help to keep the town more secure than it otherwise would have been.

George Osborne: I, with my hon. Friend, wish the people of Dover and Deal the best as they endure this difficult weather. I join him in praising the emergency services who will help people in that area through this difficult time. The flood defences in Deal will mean that such areas are better protected from adverse weather. The only way to afford such schemes is by controlling public spending and putting it into priority areas.

Jonathan Edwards: With the Governor of the central bank saying he can foresee the assets of the banking sector swelling to nine times the size of the UK economy and with recent economic growth being driven by household consumption and house price inflation, has the Treasury not been re-infected by the British disease? What happened to the Chancellor’s march of the makers?

George Osborne: Manufacturing grew and was one of the strongest sectors in the most recent GDP numbers, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say we have got to make sure—this was implied in his question—that the financial system does not bring down the British economy again. All the banking legislation we have spent many days in this Parliament debating—ring-fencing the banks and putting the Bank of England in charge—has been designed to make sure we spot problems in advance this time. Britain wants competitive financial services. I suspect that in the many constituencies represented in the Chamber financial services is one of the largest private sector employers, so this is not just about the City of London.
	We have to ensure that this is done in a way that is safe for our economy and supports it, rather than bringing it down.

Richard Graham: The Chancellor was absolutely right to stick to his strategy of backing business to deliver growth and jobs. My constituents will especially welcome the cut in energy prices, the freeze on fuel duty, the funds to help revitalise our high streets and even more support to get our young into jobs. My right hon. Friend knows how important housing debt write-off is to housing regeneration in Gloucester. Can he confirm whether the Treasury have been able, in principle, to approve the circa £50 million debt write-off case made by Gloucester city council, which would be the catalyst for our stock transfer and the first new social housing in our city for more than 25 years?

George Osborne: The short answer I can give my hon. Friend is yes. He brought to the Treasury an innovative scheme, on behalf of the people of Gloucester, to deal with the debts in the housing sector and enable the building of new homes. In our document, we reference the scheme specifically and give it our support in principle.

Adrian Bailey: In the past, the Chancellor often condemned economic growth based on an expansion of consumer spending and consumer debt, as opposed to investment and exports. We now have economic growth based on consumer spending, while exports and investment lag. I think there was in part an acknowledgement of that in the extra money for UK export finance. Unfortunately, he did not clarify whether the main obstacle to small businesses exporting our way out of recession is the drop in the minimum threshold for a deal from £5 million to a lower level, which the CBI says would bring in an extra £20 billion if implemented. Will he clarify whether he is doing that?

George Osborne: I will look at the hon. Gentleman’s specific point. We are expanding the scheme to help small businesses export, which is one of our central objectives. If we can go further, I will happily look at that and take it forward in the Budget, because that is our shared objective. We want more exports, but the issue is that our main export markets have been in a deep recession for the past year. It is not surprising, unfortunately, that exports have been hit. That has led to companies exploring opportunities much further afield. One of the best things to do for small exporters is to ensure that, when they turn up in places such as Shanghai, there is a helping hand, with facilities and an office available for them to start their search for partners. That kind of thing is precisely what we are funding today.

Julian Huppert: I warmly congratulate the Chancellor on the Government’s commitment to delivering the Greater Cambridge gain share, allowing us to unlock £1 billion of investment, providing much-needed sustainable transport and affordable housing and enabling Cambridge to continue to contribute to the British economy. Will he join me in congratulating Cambridge city council, the county council, South
	Cambridgeshire district council, Cambridge university and the local enterprise partnership on their work in delivering this?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend and the Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), raised with me the Cambridge city deal, which is a really good plan. I can be absolutely candid with him: we worked hard to announce it today, and although we did not quite get it over the line we hope to do so in the next few weeks. It is a classic example of a good local authority and local MPs working with the national Government to secure a long-term plan that will help create jobs and housing in an incredibly important city.

Derek Twigg: In view of this week’s announcements on infrastructure, would the Chancellor, a fellow Cheshire MP, agree to meet a cross-party group of MPs from Cheshire and Merseyside so that we can air our case to change the plans to toll both the current Mersey crossing and the future road crossing? Our case is as strong as that behind his decision to drop the tolls for the A14.

George Osborne: I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and other MPs local to my constituency. I know how important the second Mersey crossing is—he and I have joined forces over many years to try to deliver it—but I would draw a distinction: the A14 was an existing road that wanted upgrading, but of course it is controversial to put tolls on an existing road, whereas the bridge is a new bridge, and there is a long-established principle, from the Humber to the Severn estuary, that new bridges have tolls. Local people will have strong views on the level of the tolls, however, and I am happy to discuss that with my honourable neighbour.

Therese Coffey: I thank the Chancellor for his statement today. It shows how this Government are full of energy in driving forward British business and finding solutions. I want to give particular thanks for the A14 situation. Is it not important that we continue to dismiss the scaremongering and show that Britain is open for business?

George Osborne: Britain is very much open for business. We are now the destination for a huge amount of investment from around the world, and we have some very important ports, one of which in particular depends on the A14. That is an important strategic link. We have listened to representations from local people concerned about the prospect of tolling an existing road, albeit an improved one, and we will ensure that the road is improved, not just for local people, but for the whole country, but without imposing a road toll.

Seema Malhotra: Evidence from Citizens Advice showed that last year citizens advice bureaux received 92,000 inquiries about fuel debt and 81,000 about water debt and that the four months to June this year saw a 78% rise in the number of people inquiring about food banks. Does the Chancellor agree that, with families on average £1,600 a year worse off, this is an unbalanced recovery, and does he regret
	that the UK has suffered the second-biggest fall in wages of any G20 country since this Government came to office?

George Osborne: We had one of the deepest recessions and the highest budget deficit of any country in the G20. We have been recovering from that situation, which this Government inherited, increasing the number of jobs in the hon. Lady’s constituency and ensuring opportunities for people to go to university or find apprenticeships and for those without skills to get good training. These are the things we are doing to clear up the mess that her party left behind.

David Morris: I congratulate the Chancellor on pulling us out of the mire the last Government left us in. To help bolster growth and provide the building materials needed for what is going on thanks to his efforts, a brickworks that closed down in 2010 in my constituency on the borders will reopen at the end of this month. I invite the Chancellor to come to the reopening. I also congratulate him on helping to get youth unemployment down by 15% in the last three months in Morecambe and on his comments about business rates for shops. The Visitor newspaper has been running regular articles on getting our shops restarted in Morecambe, and this will help immeasurably. May I also—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman really has overdone it. I exercised a degree of leniency. I wonder whether he was seeking an Adjournment and then realised he had already had it.

George Osborne: Mr Speaker, there are so many good things happening in Morecambe that I am not surprised my hon. Friend wants to bring them to the attention of the House. Under this Government, not only is unemployment down and not only will many businesses be helped by the measures we have announced today on business rates, but, as he said, the construction materials industry is doing well, as construction continues apace. If I come and visit the beautiful Morecambe bay area with him, I will ensure we pop into the brickworks.

Ronnie Campbell: Is it not the hard-working people of this country who have not had a wage rise for three years, the poor, the sick and the disabled who have had their benefits cut who are paying for this, while the Chancellor has been looking after his friends in the City—the spivs, the bankers with their big bonuses and those who are fiddling their taxes?

George Osborne: Presumably, those bankers the hon. Gentleman talks about are people such as Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson.

Ronnie Campbell: Them particularly.

George Osborne: “Them particularly”, said the hon. Gentleman, in case the Hansard reporters did not hear.
	We have discussed what we can do for Blyth Valley and are setting up the enterprise zone in the port of Blyth. The hon. Gentleman could at least have acknowledged that unemployment has fallen by 21% in the last 12 months and youth unemployment by 22%.

Neil Carmichael: In contrast to Labour’s nightmare economics, the Chancellor’s statement was both realistic and encouraging, especially for the real economy. I welcome his focus on STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—subjects and the need to upskill our work force and reinforce our interest in engineering and manufacturing.

George Osborne: One of today’s most significant announcements, which will not necessarily be on the front pages tomorrow, was the increase in student numbers and the lifting of the cap on aspiration. That is a major structural improvement in the British economy. Britain has fewer graduates as a proportion of population than many other comparable countries, and it is a basic tenet of economic success that we should do more in this area. We are providing additional money for STEM subjects so that they are taught properly as well.

Yvonne Fovargue: Last year, The Brick, a Wigan borough charity, gave out 920 food parcels. This year to date, it has already given out 3,750, many of them to working families. Does the Chancellor agree with Citizens Advice that for many low-income families in work, the gain from the change in the personal allowance is swamped by the Government’s other changes to tax and benefits, causing them to turn to food banks for everyday necessities?

George Osborne: I praise the work that citizens advice bureaux do across the country, and I know that the hon. Lady was previously connected with them, but cutting income tax for the low-paid and taking them out of income tax is a real help, as is the freeze in fuel duty, rail fares and the like. As I say, in the end, the biggest thing we can do for this country is deal with our debts and get people into work. In her constituency, unemployment is down 26% and youth unemployment is down 40%. [Interruption.] Labour MPs shake their heads. I thought it used to be the party of full employment, but now it cannot welcome falls in unemployment.

Mark Reckless: Long before the last election, my right hon. Friend raised the unfairness of overseas residents buying the most expensive London properties without paying capital gains tax. Is he surprised that it has been left to him to close those loopholes and ensure that overseas residents pay both capital gains tax and proper stamp duty?

George Osborne: I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue. When I announced this measure in the autumn statement, one member of the Opposition Front-Bench team said, “Why aren’t you doing it sooner?”. Labour had 13 years to make this tax change, and the man who actually designed the tax policies and wrote the statements is the shadow Chancellor. I find it extraordinary that, whether it is dealing with this unfairness in capital gains tax or the general unfairness where they boasted that people in the City were paying lower tax rates than people who cleaned for them, we have stepped in to deal with the unfairness.

Debbie Abrahams: I find the Chancellor’s hubris absolutely breathtaking. Given that the economy would have to grow 1.5% every quarter until 2015 just to reach the levels that applied at
	the end of 2010, his hubris is staggering. He did not answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), so given today’s terrible weather, does he regret cutting the flood defence budget in 2010?

George Osborne: First, we are putting in additional money for the flood defence programme. Indeed, additional money in the autumn statement has gone into coastal management, too. The hon. Lady makes a point about the economy, but we have not, of course, heard a serious economic argument advanced by the Labour party so far. Let me point out that in the hon. Lady’s constituency, unemployment is down 30% and youth unemployment is down 48%, which are very significant falls for the people she represents.

Mary Macleod: With small business Saturday coming up this weekend, I join the director general of the British Retail Consortium, who said that the business rate cap
	“will be welcomed enthusiastically by retailers across this country.”
	While I will still keep urging the Chancellor to consider full-scale reform of business rates, does he agree that today’s announcement will save thousands of jobs around this country and boost the local economy in communities such as those in Brentford, Isleworth and Chiswick?

George Osborne: I know my hon. Friend has been assiduous in campaigning on behalf of her constituents for us to help with business rates for people running shops on the high street. I believe that she has raised the issue at the last two Prime Minister’s Questions, showing what a champion she is of her local constituency. She can take part of the credit for the measures we have taken today to help the high street.

Heidi Alexander: We have heard a great deal from Government Members about the economy today, but some might say that it is a huge amount of bluster and bravado that will not square with the reality of life for millions of people up and down the country. Will the Chancellor simply confirm that the economy is now 2.5% smaller than it was before the crisis?

George Osborne: The economy is smaller because it fell 7%. That is why. It fell in the years 2008 and 2009 when the Labour party was in charge.

Simon Hughes: I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s announcement about capital gains tax for foreign owners of property, particularly in London, and the increase in the borrowing limits for local authorities. When he does his review, promised in the autumn statement, of local councils’ ability to deliver more affordable housing, will he look at some very good examples of housing associations that, by using private sector investment and private sales, have hugely increased their capacity to build social housing—not just at affordable rents, but at social and target rents as well?

George Osborne: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some excellent housing associations have used private money and sold off some of the most expensive
	social homes in order to provide more resource for building more homes, which is precisely what we want to encourage. On the additional money in the housing revenue grant, which I know has been of particular interest to the right hon. Gentleman’s party, we have said that that money should be available on a competitive basis to those councils that are going to work with housing associations, for example, to deliver the sort of innovative schemes that he champions.

Sheila Gilmore: Some of the predictions in the OBR report have not been mentioned today. One is an upgraded prediction on how much is going to be spent on certain benefits, such as employment support allowance, which by 2017-18 is going to be £2.1 billion higher than in the last prediction, and housing benefit, which is going up by £1.8 billion—again, higher than the previous estimate. Quite apart from the misery caused by things like the bedroom tax, these welfare reforms are simply not working. When is the Chancellor going to ensure that his Government get a grip on that problem, rather than let those bills spiral? Given these predicted rises to spending, it is going to be very difficult to put a cap on welfare.

George Osborne: Although the hon. Lady put her question in quite a partisan way, she hits on a very good point. There are sometimes big increases in welfare spending that are not subject to the kind of control that we in this House exercise on much smaller sums in Government Departments. Precisely because of the forecast increases in employment support allowance and housing benefit, it is right for us to bring those issues to the House and discuss them. It is a bit wrong-headed to complain on the one hand that housing benefit is going up too much while on the other hand campaigning to increase housing benefit. No doubt we will be able to have a fuller debate when we introduce the welfare cap.

Angie Bray: I thank the Chancellor for his statement and for listening to businesses about their concerns over business rates. Businesses right across Ealing Central and Acton will welcome the cap on business rate rises, and many others will welcome the £1,000 reduction for those with houses of rateable values up to £50,000. It is a Christmas present come early for many, so I thank the Chancellor.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is another who has been an assiduous campaigner on behalf of the shops, pubs, restaurants, and indeed the charity shops, in her constituency. These measures really will help on the high streets of Ealing and Acton, and I am glad that they have been so warmly welcomed. The people who run these businesses are the epitome of hard-working and aspirational people. This Government and our party are going to stand by them.

Emma Lewell-Buck: When this Government gutted the public sector in the north-east, the Chancellor insisted that the private sector would make up the shortfall. A recent report by KPMG, however, shows that over a quarter of private sector jobs pay less than the living wage, compared with less than 10% in the public sector. Is it any surprise to the Chancellor that in-work poverty has risen in my constituency?

George Osborne: First, I would have hoped that the hon. Lady would welcome the 15% fall in unemployment in her constituency. We want to make sure that people get better jobs, and the way to achieve that is to ensure that our businesses can expand and our country and economy can grow, thus also dealing with the scourge of youth unemployment. One thing noted by the hon. Lady’s predecessor as MP for South Shields, before he left to look after International Rescue in New York, was that youth unemployment was rising from 2004. Since then, however, it has gone down by 23% in her constituency. If we invest in apprenticeships, in higher education and people with low skills, we will be able to help her constituents and the next generation of her constituents.

Paul Uppal: When I first came to this place, one issue I raised with my right hon. Friend was the importance of urging the Government always to take a long-term rather than a short-term view. In that spirit, does the Chancellor agree that the real and true economic measure of any Government—and of any future Government—is the economic legacy they bequeath to their children and grandchildren?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend puts it very well. We have great obligations to the current generation, but we also have obligations to the next generations. Saddling them with debts or with an uncompetitive economy or one where jobs are not being created is a complete dereliction of our duty to the next generation. Thankfully, with the help, support and advice of my hon. Friend, we are now turning that situation round, dealing with the debts and making sure our businesses grow. Because of my hon. Friend’s forceful campaign, we are also helping many shops in his Wolverhampton constituency.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Is not the point about the community infrastructure levy that it is there to pay for the infrastructure that communities need? Will the Chancellor tell us how much of it he intends to give away to individual households, and how he proposes to make up the resulting shortfall in funding for local infrastructure?

George Osborne: I do not have the specific answer with me, so I will write to the hon. Lady.

John Stevenson: I congratulate the Chancellor on a statement that will provide support for business and employment. If my city of Carlisle is to grow and prosper, businesses need to succeed, and if the young people of Carlisle are to share in that success, they need employment. Does the Chancellor agree that the abolition of the jobs tax for under-21s gives businesses in Carlisle an incentive to employ the young?

George Osborne: I specifically mentioned in my statement the work that my hon. Friend has done on behalf of his constituents in Carlisle to support important local large employers such as Pirelli. Thanks to his campaign, we are now able to abolish the jobs tax for people under the age of 21, which will help young people in Carlisle to obtain jobs, but we are also helping those who want to go to college. I congratulate my hon. Friend on standing up for his constituents.

Nia Griffith: The Chancellor claims that the marriage tax allowance will help some of the poorest members of society, but poorer families who must rely on universal credit will be perversely affected
	by the rules on the earnings of a second person in the household. Will he look again at the way in which the clawback tapers will work, so that that does not become a disincentive to work?

George Osborne: The whole purpose of universal credit is to remove the disincentives to work that exist in our current welfare system, driven both by the complexity of all the different benefits and by the couple penalty for whose removal my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has campaigned for many years. He is removing it—or, at any rate, heading in the direction of removing it—through universal credit, but there may be more than we can do, and I shall be happy to look into that.

James Duddridge: Sadly, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) could not be with us today to hear about economic growth, but he did leave us the gift that is the shadow Chancellor. Given that everyone is saying that the shadow Chancellor had a bit of a nightmare today, is this not an opportunity to give him a break and to leave him in place rather than his being sacked, so that he continues to serve as a reminder of the economic failure in which the last Labour Government landed us?

George Osborne: The shadow Chancellor is one of the many people whom I want to keep in his job.

William Bain: Hard-working people in my constituency are an average of £1,600 a year worse off because prices have risen faster than wages in all but one of the months in which the Chancellor has been in office. Can he confirm that this afternoon the Office for Budget Responsibility downgraded its March forecasts for average earnings next year, the year after, and in every year of its forecasting period? Did not the autumn statement simply fail to get to grips with Britain’s cost-of-living crisis?

George Osborne: The OBR forecast shows average earnings going up.

Robert Halfon: I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will not have to stuff his Christmas turkey this year, given that he so comprehensively stuffed the economic policy of the Opposition.
	I thank my right hon. Friend for the excellent fuel duty freeze. Does it not show—along with the right to buy and the lower tax for lower earners—that we are the party of aspirational working people, and the true exponents of white van Conservatism?

George Osborne: I agree with my hon. Friend. For the people of Harlow, thanks to his assiduous campaigning, we have not only frozen fuel duty to make it 20p per litre less than it would have been had there been a Labour Member of Parliament for Harlow and a Labour Government, but helped people on low incomes by lifting them out of income tax, ensured that businesses can expand, and cut business rates for those on the high street. We have done all those things to help people who want to work hard and get on, who are exactly the people whom my hon. Friend represents.

Steve Reed: According to figures from the Local Government Association, Croydon is experiencing the biggest growth in demand for school places anywhere in the country. However, Croydon council predicts that because of inadequate Government investment, there will be a shortfall of nearly 2,500 permanent places by 2016. Why will the Chancellor not act to resolve Croydon’s school places crisis, rather than showing the complacency that we witnessed this morning?

George Osborne: When we came to office, there was no provision to deal with the large increase in the number of school places that was clearly going to happen because there were more children. Since then, my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary has devoted billions of pounds to dealing with the increase and ensuring that school places are available in Croydon and elsewhere. That is another example of our not only planning for the long term, but clearing up the mess that was bequeathed to us.

Mark Pawsey: It is clear from today’s statement that although the economy is recovering, there is still much to be done, but it is also clear that this Chancellor will not shy away from the tough decisions that will allow our progress to continue. Does he agree that it is entirely appropriate that the key beneficiaries of the measures that he has announced will be our young people, both through employment incentives and training opportunities from which they can benefit now, and, in particular, through his removal of much of the burden that was left for future generations by the Labour party?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend has campaigned on behalf of his Rugby constituents for more opportunities for young people, and we are providing those opportunities through the abolition of the jobs tax and the steps that we have taken to enable his young constituents to obtain apprenticeships and go to university. Above all, however, we are helping the businesses in his constituency. He in particular campaigned for me to do something about business rates, so he can share the credit: he is part of the Government who have delivered today.

Jonathan Ashworth: My constituent Mrs Patricia Zachariah complained to me yesterday that her gas bill was set by to rise by 86%. Does the Chancellor think that that is acceptable? If not, why did he not take strong action today to deal with the energy companies that are causing so much difficulty to our hard-pressed constituents?

George Osborne: First, we have taken action to take £50 off people’s energy bills. Secondly, we are looking at competition in the market that was left to us by Labour where there were only six energy companies, in order to ensure that there are new companies for people to choose. We are also insisting that people are put on the lowest tariffs, and giving them a real opportunity to switch so that they can obtain a better deal.

Christopher Pincher: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on doing the right thing and clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion—that will add a further £6.8 billion to Treasury revenues over the next five years—but can he estimate the extent of
	the revenues that were forgone because of avoidance and evasion during Labour’s supposed boom years? Is this not another example of our having to clean up after Labour’s failure?

George Osborne: We are increasing yield by £40 billion over the current Parliament. It is not just a question of the specific measures that we take to deal with tax avoidance; it is also a question of the resources that we provide for the fraud and tax avoidance units of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Let me take this opportunity to praise HMRC for the incredible job that it has done.
	We must ensure that we collect the revenues that are due. Of course we want to live in a society in which people pay lower taxes, which is why we raised the personal allowance in order to cut income tax, and why I have announced measures to cut business rates for shops and the like. However, people must pay the taxes that are due because they cheat the rest of the country when they do not, and that is why we have taken action to deal with tax avoidance.

Kate Green: One in four families with children is headed by a lone parent, and those are the children who are likely to face the greatest risk of poverty. They do not choose their own family circumstances, and, of course, they will not benefit at all from the Chancellor’s married couples tax break. Will he consider again whether there might be better and fairer ways of spending that £700 million on families?

George Osborne: We are helping lone parents in particular by offering them more help to obtain work, or to obtain the skills and training that they need in order to find work. All the evidence—and I know that the hon. Lady has spent a great deal of her life examining it—suggests that if children of lone parents can be in working households, that will really assist their life chances. Lone parents often have the least skills and have received the least help, and we are doing a huge amount to change that.

Fiona Bruce: I welcome the Chancellor’s statement. Does he agree that, while by reducing corporation tax the Government have already shown that Britain is open for business, today—with the announcement of real help for high street retailers, support for SME exporters, and the extension of small business rate relief—they are showing that Britain is very much open for small business, too?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend and neighbour has been a champion of small businesses. I am delighted that the change that we have brought about today with a £1,000 discount for shops and high streets will mean that in Congleton, Holmes Chapel and Middlewich, the people whom she represents will get a better deal.

Toby Perkins: The self-congratulatory tone of the Chancellor and Government Members would be slightly less nauseating if it was not for the fact that people in Chesterfield are £1,600 a year worse off despite the fact that they are in work. As he reads out the fall in unemployment numbers, he will know that a huge number of those in jobs are under-employed. It used to be that
	going from unemployment to work made people better off. Does it not sicken him as much as it sickens me that on his watch people come to my constituency surgeries saying, “I am now in work and I am no better off than I was when I was on the dole”?

George Osborne: First, we are making work pay, through the changes to the welfare system, so that people are better off in work than out of work. This is the last Labour question and perhaps this is what the Opposition stand for: they would rather have people on welfare—[Interruption.] They would rather have an economic plan that was destroying jobs and putting taxes on business up than a plan which in his constituency has delivered a 21% fall in unemployment and a 14% fall in youth unemployment. He should get up and support the plan that is delivering that for his constituents.

Rehman Chishti: I very much welcome the Chancellor’s statement, which will help hard-working families and businesses in my constituency. In particular, I welcome the announcement on train fares. It will help hard-working constituents with their cost of living, unlike the Labour party, which increased train fares by more than 30% in my constituency —that was unacceptable.

George Osborne: I have been with my hon. Friend to one of his train stations in Gillingham. He has campaigned assiduously on behalf of the hard-working people he represents for help on train fares, and I am delighted that his persistence and campaigning for the people he represents have paid off today.

Stephen Metcalfe: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and congratulate him on his steadfastness in not listening to the voices, inside and outside this place, that said there was an alternative route to our recovery. Does he believe it would be irresponsible to duck our responsibilities to clear up the mess of the previous Government and leave it to our children and grandchildren to do?

George Osborne: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We need a responsible recovery. We need to help not just this generation, but the next one. Whether we are talking about providing opportunities for young people to get training and skills and get on in life, abolishing the jobs tax for the young people or, above all, dealing with the debts that the people who created those debts were not prepared to deal with, this is all about being on the side of young people.

Jeremy Lefroy: I very much welcome the removal of the arbitrary cap on student numbers, which I believe is a decision taken in the long-term interests of this country and which will bring significant economic growth in the future. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is precisely the time for universities to invest in the future? They should not do what Staffordshire university is perhaps doing by thinking about moving away from Stafford; it should invest there for the future expansion of university education.

George Osborne: I very much support my hon. Friend and his campaign to make sure that the university thrives in Stafford, and I commend him for identifying
	this as such an important issue for our country. Some 60,000 people a year have the grades, have the ambition, are willing to take out the loan and want to go to university, but at the moment we say no, because of a Gosplan system that has been in place. We get rid of that today. There will be a big increase in student numbers—of course quality will be maintained—and that will be great for the people he represents.

Alun Cairns: Over the time that council tax rates have broadly been frozen in England, my constituents and people across Wales have faced council tax increases in the region of 9%. Will the Chancellor join me in supporting the “Freeze the bill” campaign—the council tax bill campaign—to ensure that my constituents get fair play? This is a tax that politicians can control.

George Osborne: I absolutely support my hon. Friend and his campaign to make sure that the local council helps local hard-working families by freezing council tax—that is what it should be doing. By bringing this to our attention, he reminds us that there are things we can do to help people, and we are doing them today.

James Morris: I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s statement, particularly his focus on infrastructure and his infrastructure plan, and the progress that has been made on the extension of Birmingham airport. Does he agree that as we sustain this economic recovery, investment in infrastructure in places such as the west midlands is crucial to rebalancing the economy and creating jobs in constituencies such as mine in the black country?

George Osborne: I agree with my hon. Friend. The good news is that businesses are expanding, and jobs are being created in Halesowen and across the black country. We have got to make sure we support that, with enterprise zones, with transport links, with links to the rest of the country and, indeed, with the European continent, through High Speed 2, and by investing in important things such as his local hospital. In all these areas we are backing his constituents, and because they have him as their Member of Parliament, they are heard in this place.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Chancellor and all participating colleagues.

Point of Order

Mary Creagh: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you have had any indication from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Transport Secretary or the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on whether they will be able to come to this House to update us on the Government’s plans for dealing with the severe weather being experienced by Scotland, Wales and the north of England, and with the flood risk posed to the entire east coast, where evacuations are under way in parts of Essex and in Great Yarmouth.

Mr Speaker: The short answer to the hon. Lady, to whom I am grateful for her point of order, is that I have received no indication from a Minister of an intention to make a statement. She has put the matters on the record, and probably the fairest thing I can say is that we must await events.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Modern-day Slavery

Fiona Mactaggart: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered modern-day slavery.
	It is an honour to be opening this debate on modern slavery. In the four and a half months since I was elected to co-chair the all-party group on human trafficking and modern-day slavery, real progress has been made, and I hope that in this debate we can persuade the Government to make further progress. It was a great honour to be elected co-chair in July with a record turnout of Members of both Houses. I wish to pay tribute to my predecessors as chair, especially Anthony Steen, the group’s founder, who went on to found the Human Trafficking Foundation, which has done so much to raise public awareness about this appalling crime. I genuinely regret that since the change of leadership my immediate predecessor, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who could always be depended upon to bring this shocking abuse of human rights to public and parliamentary attention, has spoken less on this issue than previously, although I was glad that in October he raised the issue of what should be in the modern slavery Bill, because that is the main subject of my remarks today.
	May I start by thanking the Government for agreeing to introduce a Bill? It is tempting, but it would be churlish, to make a party political speech where I document the Government’s initial resistance to ideas ranging from signing up to the EU directive to appointing a commissioner, only eventually to change their mind. Ministers deserve praise for realising that more needs to be done and that legislation is necessary, and for consenting to a process of pre-legislative scrutiny that gives us a prospect of a better Bill. But the big question is whether it will be good enough.
	In dealing with this issue it is traditional to focus on three P’s: protection, prevention, prosecution. In the announcements so far, it is clear that the Government plan to put emphasis on a fourth P—punishment. I hope that the Minister can confirm today that he intends to make trafficking an aggravating factor in sentencing. Rape sentences, for example, should always be increased when that rape is a feature of a trafficking offence—where someone has been trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation.
	If the Bill emphasises prosecute and punish, it needs also to do more to prevent and protect. I join those two together because there is no doubt that for most successful prosecutions the courts need victims to give evidence. They will do that only if they feel safe and are helped to deal with the traumas they face.
	Although I pay tribute to the organisations that care for victims, there are deep flaws in the relationship between them and the Government. I was sent a message by a spokesman from one such body, which is under subcontract to the Salvation Army. He said:
	“MoJ officials have directly, robustly and unequivocally told us that we are not to talk about current victim support arrangements in any way whatsoever with anyone. In addition we have been told that we are not to criticise, or talk about in any form, any part of
	the Government’s current anti-trafficking work or policies. The threat was implicit that to do so would lead to the loss of our contract. In view of this, there is no meaningful way in which I can engage in the proposed evidence giving or consultation exercise. I am”—
	unbelievably
	“forbidden by the Government to speak to you on that matter. If Mr Field”—
	I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who joined me in asking for this debate, has been able to rearrange his diary to be in the Chamber today—
	“can find a way to offer some form of immunity or indemnity against punitive action by the MoJ should we say something they don’t like then we would be delighted to participate. Otherwise I must decline the offer as I have no doubt that were I to present it truthfully the evidence I wish to present the MoJ would remove the contract.”
	In response to parliamentary questions, Ministers have reassured me that that would not happen, yet those reassurances have not been sufficient. The independently witnessed threat from officials has silenced not just this organisation but others too. I hope the Minister will agree today to write to all organisations that provide victim services under contract and ask them to share their learning with Government and Parliament without fear of retribution so that we can ensure that the real needs of victims are addressed in our Bill. lf those organisations were able to give evidence, they would tell us that six weeks of accommodation and support is just not long enough for most victims to be ready to disclose what has happened to them, to overcome trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder caused by years of exploitation and to be witnesses in criminal cases. Will the Bill empower organisations to give help for longer?
	Better information is a prerequisite for more effective action. The Centre for Social Justice report “It happens here” states:
	“There is no consistent grip on the numbers. Agencies are groping in the dark for a sense of scale. The figures used...reflect the small number of cases known about but are a pale reflection of the size of the problem.”
	That is evidence. The National Referral Mechanism identified 1,186 victims last year and the UK Human Trafficking Centre 2,265. Four years ago, the Home Affairs Committee identified 4,000 victims. We just do not know the scale of the problem, which is why the all-party group is conducting an inquiry into data on trafficking.
	For the past 12 months, MPs have regularly asked Justice Ministers for information about the location of victims. They have not been given any details, on the pretext that they might compromise the victim. There is no evidence to support that claim. Is the information available about where trafficking victims are found and how and if that information is available, why is it all staying so hidden?
	In our inquiry into data on trafficking, it is evident that there are widespread concerns about the quality of information and the way in which it is shared to protect victims. As evidence from Bedfordshire police pointed out
	“a dedicated role performed by an identifiable individual”—
	such as a commissioner—
	“will remove the stasis that has developed with the issue falling between many stools: responsibility currently sitting with the Immigration Minister sends out a confusing message to victims and the public alike.”
	I congratulate the Government on planning to appoint a commissioner.

Joan Ruddock: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend who is making a most important speech. I draw her attention to a case with which I am dealing of a woman who was trafficked here at the age of 13. She was put into prostitution at the age of 15, and taken to an abortion clinic when she was pregnant with twins. She then went underground because of her great fear. Now that she has come to the attention of the immigration authorities, they simply want to deport her, with no mercy and no consideration of her terrible plight and suffering.

Fiona Mactaggart: Were we to have a commissioner, I hope that they would bring forward such cases and ensure that we show the kind of generosity that our country is capable of to people who have been treated in that vile way.
	Other actions could be taken to prevent the growth of modern slavery. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) and I have pressed private Members’ Bills to prevent slavery in supply chains. Will action on that be in the Bill?
	The work of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority has been significant in agriculture industries. Will the Minister expand its remit to other areas such as care, catering and construction where we know slavery occurs? Will he give it powers to impose civil penalties on companies that might have unwittingly allowed such practice in their supply chain without having to go through the expensive and burdensome process of criminal prosecution?
	In 2008, the Home Affairs Committee reached a unanimous conclusion on the matter. It said:
	“To retain the migrant domestic worker visa and the protection it offers to workers is the single most important issue in preventing the forced labour and trafficking of such workers.”
	Since it has been abolished, Kalyaan, the voluntary organisation which works with enslaved domestic workers, reports that more than four times as many such workers are now paid nothing at all.
	Promises that changes in the visa would be accompanied by better prevention of exploitation overseas have not been fulfilled. Home Office responses to freedom of information requests show carelessness. They recorded negligible numbers of visas issued to nationals of India, and eight to nationals of the Philippines last year compared with 2,879 and 6,010 respectively in the previous year. In case anyone thinks that that is because the new system has brought to an end the visits of overseas domestic workers, let me point out that the equivalent number of visas issued to Qatari nationals is apparently 6,704 compared with two in the previous year. It is clear that even the most basic records are not being kept. If officers do not even know that the nationality of visa applicants is not the same as that of their employers, they are unlikely to have carefully considered the risk of their exploitation.
	The Minister knows that there are significant problems in relation to children. At least one child a day is trafficked into Britain; most then go missing. Under the terms of the directive, they should have access, where appropriate, to a guardian. They need love and care. If they do not have access to a guardian, they need a best friend, and that is something the Scottish system appears to offer. Child victims cannot be expected to help the police if they are bewildered unloved and confused. Others in this debate will outline how the Bill could better protect children, but I find it so sad that children are at risk of re-trafficking because the person who knows most about them and their families is their exploiter. Can we not make progress on giving dedicated support to those victims?
	I was the instigator of the provision that became the offence in section 14 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009. I am disappointed by the reluctance of many police forces to prosecute men who pay for sex with a woman who is subject to force and exploitation. If men thought that they faced a criminal conviction in those circumstances, there is compelling evidence that they would be less likely to use trafficked prostitutes. They might even inform the police about women who are exploited in that way.
	In that case and in the case of trafficking generally, we need to do more to investigate and prosecute. In their evidence to the all-party group inquiry, Kent police said that they thought a Bill could
	“ensure that police forces are mandated to tackle human trafficking.”
	Dealing with trafficking is not stated as a priority in the Home Office’s strategic policing requirement. Will the Minister make it a priority? As a hidden crime, it is less likely to cause local pressure and although we should celebrate those local groups that are building up the campaign, such as Croydon Community Against Trafficking and the groups in Bedfordshire and elsewhere, there is not the same public concern as there is about street crime or burglary, so we need national leadership. Only 11 convictions were recorded last year and that is why we need more than tougher punishment—we need better protection, detection and investigation.
	I am glad, too, that the Government propose to take action to confiscate the proceeds of trafficking. I hope that today the Minister can confirm that funds obtained from those criminals will be used to compensate victims and perhaps to compensate police forces that have undertaken expensive investigations, too. After William Wilberforce succeeded in ending the transatlantic slave trade more than two centuries ago, the slave owners were compensated. Let us make this a truly modern Bill and compensate instead the victims of trafficking, sexual exploitation and modern-day slavery.

John Randall: I think this is the first time I have had the opportunity to welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a privilege to take part in a Back-Bench debate—one that has not been afforded to me for some time, so I am grateful to be able to speak.
	I am particularly privileged to be able to speak on this subject as I have taken an increasingly active interest in it. Back in 2010, when I was on the Opposition Benches, I sat behind the then Member for Totnes,
	Anthony Steen, as he tried one Friday to get through a private Member’s Bill to establish an anti-slavery day. I wanted to ensure that he did not talk out his own Bill—anybody who knows Anthony will know that was a strong possibility—and as I listened to his compelling speech I found myself more and more interested in the subject. I have taken an increasing interest ever since.
	Anthony Steen must be congratulated not just on that Bill and on establishing that day but, as the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), whom I am privileged to follow in this debate, said, on establishing the first all-party group back in 2006. It now has one of the largest memberships of all-party groups in the House and, as the hon. Lady said, he provided excellent chairmanship, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). The group is now in the capable hands of the hon. Lady.
	We have to get this subject up the political agenda—it is becoming increasingly important. I look forward to the day when Back-Bench debates on human trafficking and modern-day slavery are even better attended. I know the problems on a Thursday afternoon, particularly after an important statement, but this issue affects every Member in every constituency and is one we should raise.
	The hon. Member for Slough mentioned the Human Trafficking Foundation, which is now successfully chaired by Anthony Steen and has as its trustees the right hon. Clare Short and David Heathcoat-Amory, who were distinguished Members of this House. It has been doing incredible work and I also want to pay tribute to an eminent Member of the other place, Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, who is nobody to mix with—I think that is the best way of saying it. As a former judge in the family division, she gets right to the heart of every issue.
	Britain has not been a leader in securing the conviction of traffickers. These people are gangsters and are often involved not just in human trafficking but in lots of other crime, and Britain has allowed them—although not on purpose—not to go to prison and has failed to catch them and their assets. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that the proceeds of these terrible, awful crimes must be taken and ring-fenced, primarily for the victims. I also have a great deal of sympathy with allowing police forces and other agencies to get some of that money to increase their resources and to try to get more convictions. We have heard already that there were only 11 convictions last year, and the year before there were eight. Finland, which has only a tiny population compared with ours, has had more than 100 as have Italy, Spain and Romania.
	When I heard that a modern slavery Bill was a priority of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, I was delighted. I have been privileged enough to be behind the scenes to see how legislation goes through various Committees and so on, and it is not always an easy task to find a slot, but I was reassured to learn that that is a governmental priority.
	I was also delighted to hear that the Home Secretary recently set up a modern day slavery unit in the Home Office. That is a positive thing. She was also wise to appoint as her special envoy combating modern-day slavery the same Anthony Steen whom I lauded earlier.
	In my relatively recent active role in this work, I have found that a huge number of brilliant non-governmental organisations are working in this field. They are diverse,
	because modern-day slavery and human trafficking are incredibly diverse. I have learned one thing. When “trafficking” was first mentioned to me, like many people, including my constituents, I had a vision of people in the back of vans coming into the country. We talk about modern-day slavery and people talk about manacles. Possibly the most recent publicised incident in south London fits in more with people’s idea of modern-day slavery but, as far as I can see, that is a rather extreme case. Modern-day slavery is probably in all our streets and our constituencies. It is certainly not just people who are coming in from abroad; there is domestic slavery. We have heard about one victim, a British lady who was trafficked to Italy and France and made to work as a prostitute. There are cases of forced labour and, Madam Deputy Speaker, if my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) catches your eye he will be speak about a particularly nasty incident that was well publicised.
	I am certain that most—although not all—constituencies will have cannabis farms. I remember visiting one a considerable time ago. The neighbours had complained about it and the police had become involved. I never knew that most of these cannabis farms are managed by children, often from Vietnam, who are brought in as forced labour—as slaves.
	That takes me to the point that the hon. Member for Slough made about victims. We have to be careful about these people, who have been made to do something criminal—there will be exceptions and they might have committed crimes that were not the result of forced labour, but most of their crimes will have been—and we must think strongly about whether to prosecute. I believe that the Lord Chief Justice recently delivered a judgment on cannabis farms in which he said exactly that. I understand that young Vietnamese children are still being criminalised when we should be helping them and ensuring that they are viewed as the victims.

Andrew Selous: I was told by my local police that in some instances the children running cannabis farms, often in attics, had been bricked up and left in the roof space with tinned food. That is just an example of how terribly badly those children are treated.

John Randall: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who has been involved in the campaign longer than I have and has extensive knowledge.
	The sort of things that my hon. Friend is describing give us a sense of the wide variety of horrible, ghastly things that are happening. The hon. Member for Slough mentioned prostitution and brothels; a lot of people think that is it, but there is much more—but that too is awful. The lives of the victims of all these crimes are miserable and appalling, and it is scarcely credible that this could be happening, in this country and in nearly every other country in the world. Most countries in Europe may think that they are a transit country; they may think that they have some connection, but they do not realise that everything is interconnected. It is truly a hideous crime.
	We have heard about the Government’s draft Bill. I was honoured to be asked to sit on a draft Bill evidence panel with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), Baroness Butler-Sloss and some people not
	involved in Parliament. It has been an eye-opener. I have been privileged to hear and speak to the NGOs, which hold diverse views on what should be done. We share the same goal, but sometimes they differ slightly.
	I would say to the Minister that I agree with the hon. Member for Slough that the domestic worker visa should be re-examined. I can understand entirely why it was brought in, and if we did not know about the abuses that might result from it—the unforeseen consequences—we might have said it was a very good thing. However, there is compelling evidence to support the view that it must be looked at again, because far from discouraging slavery it could well be helping the people enslaving domestic workers.
	The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) spoke of introducing some private Members’ Bills. I became a bit of an expert on private Members’ Bills on Fridays—I brought one in myself many years ago—and I understand the difficulties of introducing private Members’ legislation. The problem of supply chains is a live issue. We must use the Bill to try to sell the idea of scrutinising supply chains. Instead of saying, “this is extra red tape and bureaucracy,” we should point out that this is a way of protecting companies from having in their supply chains things that they do not want, and would be appalled to find.
	This country has a wonderful opportunity, once again, to take a lead in this area. In California there is a law, although I believe it is more of a voluntary code. The issue is sensitive, and because of the late stage in the electoral cycle we cannot be too ambitious—we must get the Bill through. We got Anthony Steen’s private Member’s Bill enacted on almost the last day of the Parliament in 2010, so we have to make concessions here and there. I am a pragmatist, although I am becoming a bit more evangelical about some of these issues. We have to be pragmatic sometimes. We shall deliver our report on the day that, I believe, the Government are presenting their own draft Bill. We must all get together and try to see what we can do.
	Education is also important. By that I mean the education of everyone—not just parliamentarians but, equally important, our constituents. It may be invidious to single out one group, but I want to pay tribute to a group called Just Enough. The charismatic young man in charge, Phil Knight, goes into schools to educate them about modern-day slavery. It was with him that I suddenly realised the blindingly obvious—that modern-day slavery appears in folk tales. Cinderella—what better example could there be of latter-day slavery, as opposed to the mental images of the terrible ships going backwards and forwards across the Atlantic? Another example, quite relevant today, would be “Oliver Twist”—the boys who were entrapped and made to do criminal action.

Michael Connarty: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that that is a true story. “Oliver Twist” is not fiction. The court reports of that time show that Italian men would go to the south of Italy and promise families to take the young boys to the north of Italy and train them to be, perhaps, a watchmaker, but instead they brought them to London and taught them to be pickpockets.
	There was never a Fagin—that was a piece of anti-Semitism in the writing of the novel—but it was a true story. It was repeated here with the Roma children pickpocketing on South Eastern Trains four or five years ago. They were rounded up—more than 150 young people from Roma families.

John Randall: I am grateful for that intervention. I am aware that most of Dickens, although sometimes slightly over-caricatured, is based on the times. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, that is why I say that “Oliver Twist” is such a good example for today, because such practices are going on today. Although we should not frighten kids with some of the more horrific things, if in school they are gradually made aware of modern-day slavery from an early age, they might be able to spot what is going on. Then, with their friends, they might notice something untoward. There are some incredibly good initiatives out there, a bit like Childline, but providing a point of contact if it is thought that someone is being trafficked or held against their will; but first we must educate people.
	A few years ago, a neighbour in suburban Uxbridge told me that the lady down the road was a bit concerned; she thought there was something going on in one of the houses. I went to see her. She was a youngish mother. She was concerned that the lady next door had too many male visitors. We have Brunel university there; I thought perhaps she was being a little bit unkind because some young lady was entertaining, but I did my duty: I went to the police and asked if they would check it out. They came back to me at the end of the day and said, “You are absolutely right, Mr Randall—there is a brothel there.” That is in my own road, which I have lived in nearly all my life. They were moved on; I am not sure they were trafficked. But I am saying that it is so hidden, as the hon. Member for Slough said. This is a hidden crime. It is actually a hidden abomination, and we must do something about it.
	I pay tribute to my own London borough of Hillingdon, which on this issue, as on many others, is very active—in modernspeak, I would say a beacon, but it is just a very good example. We have refuges. Of course, we have Heathrow airport in our constituency, but that is not the only reason. The borough takes trafficking and modern-day slavery very seriously.
	Police forces are under lots of pressures. We have an incredibly good set of police officers around the country—in the Met, I have come across, in particular, Kevin Hyland, but there are many others. Your ordinary policeman has so many things to consider. That is why I think the Bill will be very important, to put all the legislation together so that they can understand the crimes and give them higher priority.
	The hon. Member for Slough was absolutely right. For most of my constituents, human trafficking would not even appear on a list of priorities, because few people know it exists in their area. They would think it was some high falutin’ thing that was being put around by well meaning but misguided people. My constituents are more concerned about street crime, burglary, car crime and so on. We must get that message across.
	I know for a fact that the Prime Minister has taken a keen interest in the issue. I want to see my Government, this Parliament and this country taking the moral lead. We know and we will repeat that Wilberforce did that
	200 years ago, but this is a modern abomination in our world. I hope that we can lead efforts to do something about it.
	I conclude with what has moved me more than anything else. I briefly mentioned that I could almost become evangelical on this, which most people who know me would say does not fit in my normal idiom. Just speak to some victims. Listen to them. See the people and what has happened to them—the hideous nature of it—and what has happened to them afterwards. The hon. Member for Slough is right. Is 45 days enough? It might be in some cases, but mostly probably not. Where do the victims go afterwards? They are let out of a refuge and they are on the street. Who are the first people to contact them? The traffickers. The victims do not know where to go for safety and security. We have had evidence that some want to go back to their country, but some do not. In some cases they are frightened because the traffickers know where their families are. They know who they are and they will find them again. The traffickers are very evil people.
	Once again, I am delighted to take part in the debate. I am delighted that the Government are going to take action. Some of us would hold their feet up to the fire on this, although we would probably let them go just before they burn. We must get rid of trafficking. We must make the public aware that slavery is alive and kicking in our day-to-day surroundings.

Frank Field: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I, too, express pleasure at speaking for the first time with you in the Chair, that being my fault rather than any reflection on you.
	I am immensely pleased to follow the two speakers who opened our debate, underscoring its importance. Like the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), I come to this debate because of one person, Anthony Steen, and how he catches people. He wished to have someone on his board. He promised that they would have to turn up only once a year and sign a few papers, and that nothing else would be required of them. Like the right hon. Gentleman, thanks to the endless tutorials that Anthony Steen gives us, I have a sense of evangelical zeal as well.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) who opened the debate said that she did not expect me to be here. Indeed, I have been excused from some meetings so that I could be here, but if I do not attend to the very end of the debate, it is not because I am not keen on the topic—I am—but because I need to take up other duties elsewhere.
	The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip referred to the opportunity that the Government offered me to chair the review sessions with an eye to how a modern anti-slavery Bill should look. Thanks to the former hon. Member for Totnes, we began our hearings by speaking with victims of this terrible evil deed. We ended our evidence sessions today, also with victims. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Slough in what she said about the importance of the Bill. Because we are being so proper to the victims, we push up the prosecution rate. Even if that were not the consequence, I would make a plea that we behave differently towards the victims because of the nature of the evil that has been perpetrated against them.
	I have been knocked sideways by the evidence that we have received from the victims. I have been shocked and horrified, finding it almost unbelievable not just that such evil could occur in the world, but that it could occur here, in our own constituencies. As we have heard, the shackles are different today. There are no manacles; the slaves are not in irons. They are controlled even more effectively. The job that the Government have is different from Wilberforce’s. In a country where slaves were all too apparent, Wilberforce’s role was to change public opinion and persuade it to condemn such evil acts. Now, the chains take a different form, and people do not believe that such evil takes place. The control mechanisms of fear, violence and the knowledge of what will happen to brothers and sisters or parents back in the victim’s home town are chilling beyond belief.
	That is why the Government’s Bill is so important. I think it is marvellous that the Government have moved from thinking that no Bill was necessary to wanting a Bill. I applaud them, as other Members will no doubt do in the debate and as the country will do, for making that move. I want to make a plea to the Government not just to settle on a Bill, but to use the opportunity to make it a world leader of a Bill, not because we want credit for our country—though that is a noble objective to wish for—but because the evil is so great and so widespread that we want whatever we can craft in this Chamber as the Government’s Bill to be one that others pick up and wish to see mirrored in their own societies. It is important also that we learn from that.
	We have touched on the two respects in which the Government can make this a special Bill—a different Bill, a great agent for change not just in this country, but worldwide. We have already mentioned domestic workers. That shows how far the debate has moved in the space of a few years. When the issue first arose, it was an immigration issue. There seemed to be no doubt about the potential abuse that could occur from allowing the status quo to continue, and the Government changed it.
	We now all realise that we live in a more complicated world. Although it may in some sense be an immigration issue, it is also an issue of whether we as a Parliament wish to be party to rules that further strengthen the hand of the slave owners and make it easier for them to carry out their evil deeds, and whether the Government will make a further jump on the topic of immigration. As the Minister knows, there are few people in the House tougher than I about immigration restrictions, but we need to act with honesty and fairness and see the consequences of our actions. I join the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip in appealing to the Government to pause and reflect on the fact that we have all moved on and that this is no longer a simple immigration issue. It is a question of whether we use our immigration rules to strengthen still further the hands of those who operate by tyranny.
	The other issue relates to supply chains. Whatever the number of slaves imprisoned in our country, most of the slaves who serve us live in far-away countries, in supply chains. We must therefore consider not only whether the Bill will be brilliant for this country, which I hope it will be, but whether it will set an international standard for fighting slavery worldwide and ensure that we do not benefit from the gains of slavery.
	The Prime Minister is probably more knowledgeable than any other western leader on the extent of slavery, thanks in part to the former Member of this House who set up the Human Trafficking Foundation. I am conscious that any Prime Minister must weigh up whether to increase the amount of red tape for businesses—I believe that economic revival will come and more constituents will have jobs if businesses can thrive—with another duty, which is that if the supply chains of some of the businesses that are proud to operate from this country are infected with slavery, they, and their boards in particular, are clearly liable to be participating in the most serious criminal offences. We must therefore weigh up the worries about red tape in this instance against the proper concern about businesses putting themselves in that situation.
	Like other Members, I look forward to the Government bringing forward their Bill, which I understand will be in the middle of December, and to the report that we will present to the Home Secretary, the Minister and the Prime Minister on what we would like to see in it. I hope that the journey that the Government have been on, which they have encouraged other people to join, in rethinking their position on how we can most effectively counter modern slavery will continue right up until the Bill receives Royal Assent. Of course, any Bill that they introduce will make things better than what we have now. It will help to rescue some of the people who have been subjected to the evil of slavery.
	We have an extraordinary and historic opportunity, which the Government have made, not only to do ourselves proud, but to do the world proud. Those who gave evidence to us, as the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip explained, talked about what had happened to them, and we do not possess the words to convey the sheer horror of what they went through, and what many continue to go through. We could make a difference for a large number of them if we get the Bill right.

Andrew Selous: It is a great honour and privilege to speak in this important debate. It is significant that it is entitled “Modern-day slavery”. A few years ago it might have been entitled “Human trafficking”, but of course modern-day slavery encompasses human trafficking but goes wider, because one of the many terrible truths about the issue is that there are British slaves who are moved from one part of our country to another, or indeed overseas, to be forced to work in slavery.
	It is worth putting the whole issue in context. The United Nations estimates that some 27 million people are today living in modern-day slavery around the world, which is more than there were in Wilberforce’s day. When I was young I learned my history and was taught, as most of us were, that Wilberforce and many others had abolished slavery, so it is a real indictment of us, in 2013, to see the extent of slavery around the world and, indeed, in our own country.
	The issue is both global, because there are international criminal business networks, and intensely local. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South
	Ruislip (Sir John Randall) explained, it could be happening on our own streets or yards away from our constituency offices, and of course it is very difficult to spot. The awful truth is that huge amounts of money are being made by the slave owners and traffickers. If their labour costs are virtually nil, they can make a great deal of money from their business. Sheer greed and the evil of one human being wanting to exploit another for financial gain are at the heart of what we are talking about today.
	I was made aware of the issue a couple of years ago while on a church holiday with my family. We heard a presentation from the A21 Campaign, one of the many excellent groups fighting modern-day slavery. I was convinced then that it was an issue I should study, devote time to and work on, with colleagues on both sides of the House and many influential people outside, to try to do something about it.
	I had already set that course when, back in the late summer of 2011, I received a phone call from Bedfordshire police to tell me that there would be a major police operation in my constituency on Sunday morning. They could not give me more details, because it had to be secret, but I was told that I would be briefed later that morning. That morning, some 200 police officers from both Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire police moved on to a Traveller site in a small—I might even say sleepy—village in south Bedfordshire. There they discovered 23 modern-day slaves, some of whom had been on the site for up to 15 years. They were mainly British citizens.
	Those modern-day slaves had been picked up in the most appalling circumstances, generally at one of the lowest points in their lives. Some of them were picked up from homeless hostels. One gentleman had even been on a bridge and about to commit suicide. They had been picked up under the most terrible false pretences. They had been told that they would be paid £80 a day, given board and lodging, looked after and included in the general family in the place they had been taken to. If a person is down and out and life is not particularly good, I guess that seems quite a good offer.
	The reality was horrifyingly and shockingly different. They were taken to the Traveller site. On arrival, their heads were shaved, as happened to the victims in the concentration camps, for hygiene purposes. Many of them were forced to live in horse boxes. They had no washing facilities, although they were taken to the local leisure centre on a Friday evening, purely because on Saturdays they were shown to potential clients to try to get more business. Their owners did not want them to smell on Saturday mornings, but it did not really matter if they smelled the rest of the week.
	They had to clean the immaculate homes of the people who were exploiting them, but they were not given any toilet facilities themselves. They had to watch wonderful food being prepared for the people they worked for, but they were given meagre portions of a sloppy stew to eat. They were often woken at 5 o’clock in the morning and taken in a van, often for miles around, and occasionally overseas to various countries, and forced to do hard manual labour all day. They were brought back late at night and the same thing happened again and again. On some occasions they did not even know when it was Christmas day. That was the reality of their lives for, as I said, up to 15 years. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, I have met some of the people on the site.
	What was even more terrible for me, as the local Member of Parliament, was that I had previously been round that Traveller site with Bedfordshire police looking for children who had been truanting from school. I was on the site, I looked with my own eyes, and I missed what was going on because, as my right hon. Friend said, slaves today are not like they were in the past. They are not visible, they do not have a ball and chain, and they are not paraded around, obvious to see—they can look like you and me.
	That was my experience of what happened in my own constituency. The general point I would make to all Members is that whether they represent a metropolitan constituency or one like mine made up of market towns and villages, if this sort of thing can happen in a sleepy south Bedfordshire village, it can happen anywhere in the country.

Lorely Burt: My hon. Friend is relating a truly shocking story that invites one to speculate on how many other places this could be happening in. Is he aware of other circumstances; and what can we do, as MPs, to ensure that the same thing does not happen in our own constituencies?

Andrew Selous: I am extremely grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. The awful truth is that what happened in that village in my constituency was not an isolated incident. There have been, to my knowledge, at least two almost identical incidents elsewhere in the country—one in Gloucestershire and one in south Wales not so long ago—and I do not think that is the end of it. It was not isolated; it is ongoing, and it takes many forms.
	The hon. Lady asked, very practically, what we can do. There is no point in our just coming here and describing terrible things: we have to be purposeful. Let me describe a very practical solution from Bedfordshire that has already been mentioned a couple of times. For me, the key issue about what happened in my constituency was that these slaves had, in the main, been doing block paving work on people’s drives and so would have been highly visible to many of my constituents and many people elsewhere for miles around, yet the shocking thing is that no customer—no one at home looking out at the workmen and women on their drive—thought, “Something might not be quite right here.”
	When I went on the “Today” programme to talk about the incident, my main message, therefore, was that this an issue of public awareness. We have talked about the role of the police and we will no doubt talk about local authorities as well. The police and local authorities need the public on their side to be their eyes and ears and to pass on intelligence. Rather than do nothing, it is a thousand times better to ring 999 or Crimestoppers to say, “About the workmen on my drive—I might be imagining it but I think they looked a bit under duress and something wasn’t quite right. This is the name of the company I used—could you check it out, please?”
	We have gone a step further in Bedfordshire, where Councillor Kristy Adams of Bedford borough council has produced a set of little cards. I know we are not supposed to use props in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, but perhaps on this occasion, and for this cause, you might excuse me. They are very simple little cards. I have been giving them out for months to anyone
	who will listen. I have given some to the Minister, to Anthony Steen and to others. I am glad to be able to talk about them now, even though I cannot show them too widely. The card says:
	“Is the person you are with a victim of Modern Slavery?”
	It gives a few pointers to look for:
	“Doesn’t know home/work address?...Expression of fear, distrust, anxiety?...As an individual or group movements are restricted by others?...Limited contact with family and/or friends?...Money deducted from salary for food and/or accommodation?...Passports/documents held by someone else?”
	It then says:
	“Recognise any of the above? Please call 999 or Crimestoppers 0800 555 1111.”
	On the back, there is a bit of a description of modern slavery and reference to a number of charities—Hope for Justice, the Salvation Army, and Stop the Traffick—and to local safeguarding teams.
	I have been wanting the Home Office to produce cards like this. I do not know whether this card gives perfect information, but we decided in Bedfordshire to get on and do something about the issue, which I have been raising with Ministers for about two years. I would love the Government to produce something like this that they are completely happy with and put it up on a website so that people all over the country could print it out. I have got a pocketful of these cards to give out. We could help in all our constituencies if every community group, faith group and local authority had similar cards that people could put on the fridge, their desk or wherever, just to get them thinking about this and being the eyes and ears of the police.

Lorely Burt: In my constituency we got taxi drivers to put a note up in their vehicles explaining what could be happening and asked them to be vigilant about the people they are carrying.

Andrew Selous: I think that is an excellent initiative and we could all encourage precisely that sort of thing in our own constituencies.
	The next issue I want to address is the assets of the slave owners. As I said at the start of my speech, unsurprisingly a lot of them are extremely wealthy. They have very big assets as a result of their evil activities. We need help to move that money a lot more quickly towards compensating the police and others who take action to deal with it. Mounting an operation with 200 officers is not a cheap business. It takes months of intelligence, senior officer time, a dedicated operations room and a lot of overtime pay.
	Italy has been much more successful than us in confiscating the assets of slave owners and getting them to the authorities that deal with the issue or to the victims as compensation. The key difference is that Italy freezes the assets of traffickers within 48 hours of an arrest. Will the Minister take note of that and consider including it in the modern slavery Bill?

John Randall: I reinforce that point very strongly, because as soon as action is taken—for example, an arrest is made—the traffickers move that money very quickly, by all sorts of means, out of the country. If we wait for charges, it is gone.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I happen to know that Bedfordshire police have not seen any money from the operation they properly and rightly mounted back in September 2011. As we all know, police budgets are under pressure, and—this is important—I think we would see more police activity if there was a good prospect of their getting back the money they spend on these operations. It is also important that those ill-gotten gains of the slave owners go towards compensating the victims—the modern slaves themselves—for what they have been through and so they can set themselves up and not be subject to trafficking again.
	That brings me on to my next point. I am concerned that, after the very good efforts of some police forces and some local authorities, and after the care given to victims of trafficking—or modern slaves, as we should call them—by the Salvation Army, which has the contract to look after them for 45 days, some go through that process of being rescued and cared for only to then disappear, without our knowing what happens to them, and end up being re-trafficked and going through the whole process again.
	This country has systems to monitor cattle—in fact, that is one thing that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does extremely well—because of various diseases and so on. We can track, in enormous detail, the movement of an animal from one part of the United Kingdom to another. There are probably papers in triplicate showing exactly where an animal is. Can we not just do a little bit better with people who have been through the most terrible ordeal so that we know what happens to them and do not waste all the time, money and effort spent by the police in trying to free them in the first place?
	I also want the Department for International Development to seriously consider using some of its increased budget to resettle those victims of modern slavery from overseas who are found in our country safely back in their home countries, and well away from the slave owners who moved them in the first place, so that they can restart their lives in a safe manner. My last request to the Minister is to have conversations with his ministerial colleagues at DFID to see whether they could use some of their budget to do that.

Ann Coffey: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing this important debate. I know that she is absolutely passionate about helping the victims of trafficking, and I totally agree with her that the Bill offers us the opportunity to do so. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who has had such shocking personal experience of slavery in his constituency. I totally agree with him that getting the public involved, making them more aware and encouraging them to mind other people’s business as well as their own is a very good way forward.
	I want to focus my remarks on how trafficked children are responded to and, in most cases, let down by our care system. I am the chair of the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults. Last year, we carried out a joint parliamentary inquiry, with the support of the Children’s Society, into children who go
	missing from care. It highlighted the vulnerability and specific needs of trafficked children, and we found that trafficked children are particularly let down by the care system and that their needs are being ignored. Part of the problem is that the authorities view child trafficking as an immigration control issue.

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. What are her views on the particular issue of assessing the age of children? I totally agree that the fact that these are vulnerable trafficked children is not often a priority when considering their immigration status.

Ann Coffey: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I will come on to the identification and assessment of children later, and I think that she will probably agree with me.
	Hundreds of trafficked children disappear from care every year, many within 48 hours. Some run away shortly after arriving in the country, while on their way to children’s homes. According to figures given to our inquiry, it is estimated that about 60% of those who make it into local authority care go missing, and that almost two thirds of those who go missing are never found. Our inquiry, which made a number of key recommendations, found that existing child protection safeguards are not triggered for trafficked children.
	Let us consider how a trafficked child might enter the UK. Many are smuggled through ports in the backs of lorries, but many others arrive at a UK airport accompanied by an adult trafficker. The adult abandons the child in the airport with no identification, instructing them to claim asylum, while the adult leaves the country as a transit passenger. When picked up by the airport authorities, the child is put into the care of children’s services and taken to a home or hostel. Typically, a phone number has been sown inside their clothing, and when it is safe to do so, they contact a handler and then disappear. Traffickers also get to know where the children’s homes are situated.
	One of the reasons why many non-British trafficked children go missing from care is that they are groomed so effectively by their traffickers: they are so terrified of what might happen to them or their families if they break their bond or tell the authorities that they run back to their traffickers. Being exploited for labour is the most common form of exploitation of trafficked children, followed by sexual exploitation, cannabis cultivation, domestic servitude, benefit fraud, street crime and forced marriage. Many of the victims are subject to multiple forms of exploitation.
	Sue Berelowitz, the deputy Children’s Commissioner, told our inquiry how trafficked children are placed in inappropriate accommodation, which leaves them desperately vulnerable to further exploitation. In 2009, the Home Affairs Committee report on human trafficking expressed alarm that
	“traffickers may be using the care home system for vulnerable children as holding pens for their victims until they are ready to pick them up.”
	Such a situation is partly the result of a lack of awareness about the indicators that a child might have been trafficked, as well as a lack of knowledge about the steps to take to prevent trafficked children from going missing, such as placing them away from their trafficker’s local area.
	Budget constraints in local authorities and a culture that prioritises immigration control and criminal prosecution over child protection, combined with a lack of specialist accommodation or foster care, also contribute to the inadequate support received by these young people.
	Already this year, the national referral mechanism has identified 1,500 child and adult victims of trafficking, according to the UK Human Trafficking Centre. However, the data on children are patchy and incomplete. That is why the all-party group recommended a comprehensive and independent national system of data collection for trafficked children who go missing. Under the recent reforms to the data collection system for local authorities, it does not include data on trafficked children, nationality or immigration status.
	Many professionals agree that the best solution to help trafficked children break contact with their traffickers is to use specialist foster carers who are trained to identify and respond to the specific issues and needs of trafficked children, and who know how to keep them safe. We recommended that the pilot scheme that was run by the Department for Education and Barnardo’s to train more foster parents to support trafficked children and/or sexually exploited children should be rolled out nationally.
	The provision of specialist accommodation for child victims of trafficking is very limited. Many such children are being accommodated in bed and breakfasts, hostels and supported lodgings, which do not provide the level of supervision and specialist support that is needed to prevent them from going missing or being targeted for further exploitation. That is despite the guidance that was issued by the DFE and the Home Office in 2012, which states that trafficked children should be placed in foster care or residential care and that the local authority should assess the child’s vulnerability to the continuing control of their traffickers and take into account the risk that they will go missing.
	A recent “Newsnight” investigation revealed that 15,728 children aged 16 and 17 had asked local authorities with help for homelessness. Of the local authorities that responded to a freedom of information request, 148 had housed children unlawfully in band B accommodation in 2012, despite statutory guidance stating that such accommodation is not suitable for children. That is a problem for trafficked children because most of them will be in that age group.
	As I have said, trafficked children often go missing before their level of vulnerability has been assessed by children’s services and before identification has taken place. That is why I support the recommendation of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and the Association of Chief Police Officers that photos of the children should be taken and recorded along with their passport number, nationality, fingerprints and DNA. That would mean that if a child turned up later in a cannabis factory, or was a victim of sexual exploitation or had been charged with an offence in a different part of the country, they could be identified as a trafficked child and the right level of intervention could be used to safeguard them.
	To re-emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Slough said, it is important to understand that children do not volunteer the information that they have been trafficked. If we want to break the bond with
	the trafficker, the child must be given an advocate, guardian or social worker at the point of entry to the country to support them and encourage the formation of a trusting relationship, so that they have someone to turn to other than the trafficker. In recent debates in this House, we have talked about the importance of communicating with children and giving them a voice. That is all the more important when a child arrives in the country unable to speak the language, with no understanding of our laws or customs, and fearful of what might happen if they divulge anything to the authorities.
	Only five of the 64 local authorities that responded to the all-party group’s call for evidence last year collect data on the nationality of children in care. Only two authorities, Hillingdon and Portsmouth, collect data on whether children have been trafficked. Witnesses told our inquiry that professionals often had a negative attitude towards trafficked children and that that had implications for the way in which such children were treated. We recommended that the DFE should lead a programme of work to support local authorities to meet the needs of trafficked children through existing child protection frameworks. Local authorities could also reflect on the needs of trafficked children in their annual sufficiency surveys, which show how they will provide care to meet the needs of looked-after children in their areas.
	A major factor in the failure to protect trafficked children is the lack of knowledge among professionals of the indicators that a child might have been trafficked. Children and Families Across Borders, which trains local authorities, reported to the all-party group that 98% of social workers have not heard of the national referral mechanism and have no clear understanding of the issues involved in identifying or protecting trafficked children. The inquiry heard from practitioners and the police that effective multi-agency working would improve information sharing and strategic responses. We heard evidence of consistent failure in intelligence-sharing between the UK Border Agency, the police, and statutory and local authorities about organised criminal networks and trafficking trends.
	Pat Geenty, the ACPO lead on missing persons, told the inquiry how the issue of missing persons needs to be recognised, and he referred to a multi-agency environment. He said:
	“For me the Holy Grail is MASH, the multi-agency safeguarding hub, in every police force in the country, if we can get those in place and we can bring our local authorities and our different agencies together in one room, all referrals going into case management, we would have an opportunity of sharing information, sharing data much more effectively”.
	I am aware that progress is being made on that, and that many multi-agency safeguarding hubs are being set up, but it is patchy across the country. If the statistics on missing persons that are shared do not properly identify children at risk of being trafficked because there is no efficient data collection system, those children will continue to fall through the net.
	Hillingdon borough council has shown what can be done and reduced the number of unaccompanied children who have gone missing. My concern is that other authorities that do not have those levels of expertise may not identify as having been trafficked children who may have been transported many miles from their original
	point of entry. We therefore need better data collection, and better understanding in agencies with responsibility for protecting children of indicators that a child may have been trafficked. We also need safe places for children to try and break the relationship between trafficker and child, improved identification of children at an early stage, better information sharing between agencies, and a trusted person for the child to relate to as soon as they are assessed as being likely to have been trafficked.
	In other words, those children must be included in the existing child protection system so that, for example, actions taken to safeguard any trafficked children in an area are included in the annual reports of the local safeguarding children boards. We will not stop the evil of trafficking children for exploitation until the people who do it believe that they are taking more risk than the profit they are offered merits. One way of doing that is to ensure that their victims do not become invisible and lost in our country.
	Irrespective of the immigration status of these children, they are still children and entitled to the same protection as other children in the country. I welcome the Government’s progress in introducing a modern slavery Bill, but I hope it will include practical measures that will better protect those children. I also hope it will disrupt the activities of the evil men and women who see all children as commodities for profit, because when their exploitation of one child is disrupted, that protects other children who might otherwise have become their victims.

Fiona Bruce: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this important debate, and I congratulate the Government on proposing a modern day slavery Bill. I will focus many of my comments on young girls who are enslaved for sexual exploitation, both in the UK and globally, and emphasise that, as many Members have said, this is a global trend, just as slavery was in Wilberforce’s day.
	Young girls are brought to the UK from other countries, often under duplicitous arrangements and in the belief that they are coming to be a hairdresser or a beautician. They are then imprisoned in rooms and suffer terrible atrocities, brutally abused by several men until they are basically broken down. Often they are abused for many years. In addition, there are people, mainly men, who travel from this country for so-called sex tourism—a terrible phrase. Who would go on holiday specifically to abuse and rape a child? Indeed, many of the victims are children; according to UNICEF, 20% of the victims of sex tourism are children who effectively are not consenting at all.
	About 2 million children a year are exploited in the global sex trade. As we have heard, a drug can be sold only once, but a woman can be sold many times and a child even more. There are the most appalling stories—I will refer in a little more detail to the child sex trade in Mumbai—even of babies being sold. One baby was rescued just as she was about to be sold into the Mumbai prostitute area for £150. She is now in safekeeping.
	Shamefully, while many sex tourists are from the UK, and despite the fact that we already have legislation in place to investigate and prosecute British nationals
	committing sexual offences against children abroad, including extraterritorial legislation, we are—according to the International Justice Mission’s most recent campaign—yet to see meaningful prosecutions. That should serve as a real lesson, because it is critical that any new modern slavery Bill is not just passed into law but has the capacity to be enforced afterwards. Without that capacity, the Bill will be meaningless.

Andrew Selous: I support what my hon. Friend says. The House has done the right thing in passing the relevant legislation, but we have not seen the follow-up prosecutions. Many of us are aware of British citizens, sometimes in Asia, running horrendous establishments where children are regularly mistreated. I strongly support her point and join her in asking the Minister for more action in this area.

Fiona Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I commend him for his excellent speech and his work in this area.
	Just as we have realised in this country that we need to have more joined-up thinking between different authorities—the border forces, the police, local authorities, social services and education services—to combat this terrible trade, we also need considerably more joined-up work internationally if we are to combat it effectively. We need to work with law enforcement agencies, other Governments, the private sector, the voluntary sector, front-line professionals and members of the public if we are to support victims and see a diminution in what is an increasing trade, not a decreasing trade. We need to expand prevention efforts in source countries to alert victims and disrupt the work of the traffickers. We need to work with foreign Governments to strengthen their knowledge and understanding of this issue—

Debbie Abrahams: Was the hon. Lady as concerned as I was to learn that after the 2004 tsunami a number of children and young girls were trafficked into slavery and the concern is that the same may happen to children orphaned as a result of the typhoon in the Philippines? I agree with her that an international effort is needed.

Fiona Bruce: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point and I hope that the Department for International Development will take note of it.
	Tragically, behind the global sexualisation of young children lies increasing demand. One of the reasons for this is online pornography. A brothel owner in South Africa explained how men visiting from across the globe increasingly demand younger girls. The men want to re-enact fantasies developed by watching online pornography and are making ever more violent and sadistic requests of girls. I ask the Minister to encourage the National Crime Agency to be vigilant and do what it can to stop this illegal pornographic content. I realise how difficult that is, but we need to be aware of it as a root cause of some of the increasing sex tourism and abuse of young children globally.
	Another possible answer is to look at the mainstream media’s attitude to prostitution. On the surface many, if not most, people would say that a man visiting a prostitute is socially unacceptable, but under the surface films
	such as “Pretty Woman” and television programmes suggest an inexplicable social acceptability of such actions. Society’s attitude needs to shift on this issue.
	Grooming can lead to terrible abuse and for those at risk education is key. Education is also important for the general public both here and abroad, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said. If people travel abroad and are aware of abuse, they have as much a duty to report it to the authorities there as they do here. If people, particularly UK nationals, are guilty of this offence here, they are equally guilty abroad.

Bob Stewart: People should report such matters in this country, as well as to the authorities abroad.

Fiona Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for making that excellent point—I fully agree.
	I commend the work of Sandbach high school in my constituency, where a group of young students, led by an inspirational teacher, have for several years been encouraged to educate their peers in school about the dangers of grooming and what it can lead to. They have conducted a national campaign, which has been recognised by the Red Cross, to raise awareness of the terrible plight of trafficked and abused young women in enforced prostitution. I encourage Ministers to look at a Nordic model that seeks to educate young people through schools, and by other means, to understand better this terrible trade, and to understand that in paying for sex they may be paying to rape a victim of human trafficking who is enslaved.
	Our police forces need more education, too. I was pleased to receive a reply to an inquiry I made a short time ago to the Cheshire constabulary, stating that it now has a specifically appointed member responsible for human trafficking. However, I understand that he has had no formal training. That again means that we have no teeth to enforce legislation in our county. As hon. Members have said, this trade can happen anywhere, anytime and in any part of our country. It is therefore vital that the Home Secretary, as part of the modern slavery Bill, ensures that training is given to our police forces, so they are fully aware of the new provisions and powers. It is no good having legislation if there is not the capacity to enforce it.
	It is important that, within DFID funding programmes to educate girls in the countries that we support through our funding, there is an awareness of the dangers of trafficking. We have gone to enormous lengths in this country to promote the education of young girls. It is accepted that if we can give girls an education, we can transform a community. We need to ensure that this issue is part of that education programme. A few months ago, as a member of the Select Committee on International Development, I visited Ethiopia. We inspected excellent work to reduce child marriage. Traditionally, hundreds of thousands of young girls in many communities have been married at a very early age, often as young as six or a little older. Their families think that this will secure their future. In fact, it does the opposite, because they lose their education, often suffer terrible internal injuries through early sex, die in childbirth and so forth.
	The Government have done an amazing amount of work to reduce the prevalence of child marriage in Ethiopia, but when we went into one school in Ethiopia and asked the head teacher, “What are your problems with child marriage?”, she said, “We have almost none, but we have a major problem with our young girls simply disappearing. We believe they are being taken to adjoining countries.” We must address that through our aid provision.

Bob Stewart: I am bound to speak because my wife saw such children being dragged across South Sudan when she was a member of the International Committee of the Red Cross. They were slave trains of people taking mainly Africans across towards the middle east. She told me it was quite dreadful.

Fiona Bruce: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example.
	Sex tourism is also prevalent in Mumbai. I alert hon. Members to an excellent e-book campaign that, as vice-chair of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern day slavery, I had the privilege to launch. The campaign is called, “Taken: Exposing Sex Trafficking and Slavery in India”, by a remarkable woman called Hazel Thompson, who spent 11 years in the red-light district of Mumbai. This e-book can be purchased for the price of a glass of wine through the website, takenebook.com. I commend it to hon. Members. Hazel tells of a girl who was 11 when she was trafficked from a poor village in India. Her trafficker was her mother’s friend, and she promised Guddi—the girl’s name—well-paid domestic service in Mumbai that would help feed her struggling family, but when Guddi arrived she was taken to a brothel and raped. The madam of the brothel and her daughter held her down by her arms and legs to restrain her. If Guddi and her family had known about domestic trafficking and where she was really going, her life today would be very different.
	The book highlights the extensive prostitution in Mumbai, where women are kept enslaved in a tiny red-light district: 20,000 women and girls are believed to be forced to work as prostitutes in just one small network of streets, and many of them, when they first arrive, are kept in small cages, where they can barely stand up, to break them. Some of them are kept there for months. Many of these women, brought in when they are young women or girls, live there and have no hope of escape. There could be as many as 26 minders from the cage to the outside of this red-light community that they would have to get through before they could possibly escape. It is virtually impossible.
	International hotels have a key role to play in addressing this terrible issue of sex tourism. Some hotels actually house brothels. They will say, “We have nothing to do with it”, but they will subcontract part of their buildings, which will then be classed perhaps as gyms or health clubs, but which will in fact be brothels. It is essential that we ensure that international hotels have nothing to do with this. I commend Hilton Worldwide for taking action, operating training programmes at both leadership and in-house levels, to teach hotel employees to identify illicit activities and better understand the issues surrounding child sex trafficking. Hotels, particularly the large international ones, must take a lead in demonstrating that they will take no part in this.
	Before closing, I commend the work of some airlines. The “It’s a Penalty” campaign aims to educate tourists about international legislation while they are on British Airways flights to Brazil. There is a film with the Brazilian ambassador, with Gary Lineker and with other prominent footballers. We need to see more of this kind of constructive, innovative campaigning so that we can alert people both in this country and abroad to the fact that this is an international trade and that we must play our part in stamping it out.

Graham Jones: I want to make some brief comments this afternoon on the issue of child slavery, and particularly on prostitution in India, which follows on neatly from the comments of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I endorse what she said and I hope to add to it.
	In many ways, the term “child prostitution” is a euphemism: it fails to describe the shocking details of this vile trade; it is nothing short of slavery and the rape of young children. My attention was drawn to the scale of the problem when, like the hon. Member for Congleton, I visited India in 2012 with a UK Trade & Investment delegation. I then realised the realities of life in Indian society and in Indian cities.
	In India, children are sold or trafficked into a life of abuse—a life that for too many child prostitutes leads to an early death. As the hon. Lady said, they do not usually live beyond their mid-teens as a result of abuse, infections and lack of care. AIDS and other infectious sexually transmitted diseases take their toll on such young bodies. Slavery appears endemic in India, and according to the global slavery index of 2013, an estimated 14 million people are in slavery there—more than in any other country, accounting for nearly 50% of the world’s slaves. Nearly 90% of this is in domestic slavery.
	The delegation visited a refuge in Hyderabad, which was like the one on Mumbai. It was set up for rescued children who had been forced into enslaved prostitution. It was a harrowing experience—one that will not leave me for many years, if at all. It really brought to light just how tough life can be on this planet, even 12 years after the signing of the millennium development goals. The cross-party delegation witnessed the very depths of inhumanity. These were children that in many cases were seized from rural areas and trafficked across India to work in large cities such as Hyderabad and Mumbai. Poverty had in some cases led to children being sold into slavery by their parents, while in many other cases, the poorest families were simply conned by the traffickers by a promise of a better life for their children in the cities. Which parent would not want a better life for their children? The parents do not know where their children have been taken, and the children are too young to know where home is. The refuge we visited explained that, in most cases, there was no way of tracing a rescued child back to their parents. It was harrowing.
	Two hundred thousand children a year are sold into slavery by their parents, many, according to the US Department of State, for as little as $l7. Modern-day slavery in India should unsettle many people, and anyone who believes that slavery ended with Wilberforce or Lincoln should perhaps visit India to see the scale of
	the problem. For those who have seen the film “Slumdog Millionaire”, the poverty in India is truly sickening. Recent sex abuse cases have highlighted the problems to be found there.
	What the delegation heard was truly shocking—young children visited by between 30 and 60 men a day for as little as 15p per visit, with the youngest child in the refuge in Hyderabad being aged just three—[Interruption.] —yes, three. The average age of child prostitutes has fallen to about eight, and these girls were readily available. As I say, some were as young as three; we could hardly believe what we were seeing. UNICEF estimates that there are around 500,000 child prostitutes in India alone, showing the scale of problem, while there are about 200,000 in Thailand. At every minute of the day, a woman or a child is sold into slavery; more than a million children globally have had their childhoods stolen.
	I was incredibly proud to see that, in Orissa, one of the poorest parts of India from where children are trafficked, UK aid money was keeping vulnerable rural children in education and with their families. That aid money had helped set up co-operatives of poor farmers, cutting out the greedy middle men and raising the incomes of poor families, thereby significantly protecting the children of those families from the hands of traffickers.
	There are many who are driven not by a compassionate desire to improve the lives of the world’s poorest but by an unpleasant desire for the United Kingdom to turn its back on foreigners, without giving any thought to what that actually means. The Indian state, and Pakistan, may be failing poor people, and we should always question Government policy, but we should also always seek to help the poor and to protect young children, and we should vigorously challenge the people in the UK who are so desperate to cut aid for those people. The vast majority of Britons are proud of our charitable culture, and the UK’s charitable appeals bring in millions of pounds. Organisations such Comic Relief, Christian Aid, Save the Children and Tearfund are well respected and well supported, both here and internationally.
	Crucially, we should remember that those whom we are helping are often the victims of their Governments’ actions. Our answer should be not to punish nations for the failings of their Governments, but to focus on the misery of poverty and how the UK can help those in need. Britain is a great nation, and I hope not only that today’s debate will strengthen our resolve to help those in poverty who are forced into modern-day slavery, but that we can tackle the worst form of modern-day slavery, child prostitution. I urge the Minister to consider the horror of that issue, particularly in India, and to reflect on it both in dealing with trafficking and in the context of UK aid to India.

Pauline Latham: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the first occasion on which you have occupied the Chair while I have been in the Chamber, and I congratulate you on your election.
	Slavery takes a huge number of forms. I am pleased to note that, apart from the first speaker in the debate, no one has decided to make party political points, because this should not be a party political issue. It should be cross-party, and I think that everyone else has taken that route.

Fiona Mactaggart: I do not think that I did make party political points. I welcomed the cross-party consensus on the issue, and praised the Government for their Bill. I did ask the Minister to go a bit further here and there, but I did that in common with Labour Members, and I do not think it fair to suggest that I made a party political speech.

Pauline Latham: Perhaps the hon. Lady feels that she did not do so, but I disagree with her on that.
	As I have said, slavery takes a huge number of forms. I do not want to focus on international trafficking, although, having recently returned from Burma, I know that the Burmese fear that, following the opening of their borders, an increasing number of young girls will be taken to Thailand for trafficking. We should bear it in mind that they may end up in this country as well, and I think that the police and border agencies should look out for young girls coming here from Burma. Over the last few years, I have been made aware of slavery, trafficking, and the fact that people are groomed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), a former Minister, spoke at an event that I organised recently in my constituency, along with Sheila Taylor, an old friend of mine from Derbyshire who set up and used to work for Safe and Sound Derby but is now a member of a committee that advises the Government, and members of CROP —Collective Response of Parents to Child Sexual Exploitation—who work with victims. I also invited the parents of children attending two secondary schools, both of which have between 1,300 and 1,500 pupils. The parents were very white and middle-class; the area that I am talking about is very much a leafy suburb. What shocked me was the small number who turned up to hear those very impressive speakers. Allowing for the fact that each of them might have had two children at one or other of the two schools, I think that there was probably a potential for 1,500 to turn up, but fewer than 20 did so. One or two teachers came along.
	I think there is an attitude of, “It doesn’t happen here, does it? It happens in inner cities, it happens abroad, it happens anywhere but in leafy suburbs.” I set up this event because I had spoken to a constituent whose husband had been trafficking some children, particularly her daughter’s best friend. He had been working with these children, grooming them. He has been to prison, but is now out and is still trying to see these children. So this happens all over the world, including on our own back doorstep. I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) talking about a brothel on the street where he had lived more or less all his life and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) talking about the terrible problems he had had in his constituency.
	Derby was one of the first areas to deal with this issue and it had Operation Retriever. A lot of men were grooming women and taking them off to Birmingham and other places, but these men have all been prosecuted and some have gone to prison. The men were from the inner city, but the children they were trafficking were not—again, they were often from very respectable backgrounds. There is a big problem with parents thinking, as they do about grooming and the internet, that their children are not going to be caught up in this. So there is
	an obligation on every one of us in this House to try to make people aware of what might be happening on their back doorstep.

David Burrowes: My hon. Friend made the point that this is all around us and she talked about the internet. If we turn to the adverts section in the back pages of our local paper, we will find sex for sale adverts. Should we not heed the words of Detective Inspector Hyland, who says that we should all take action in our local communities to challenge editors of local papers when sex for sale adverts advertise brothels, which are very much linked to trafficking? We can all take steps to try to rid those papers of such adverts.

Pauline Latham: That was an interesting contribution and I will now look much more carefully at the Derby Telegraph, as I was not aware of it having adverts for sex. I will look very carefully when I go home this weekend to see whether my local newspaper is part of this selling of sex. If it is, we should be challenging our local editors and saying that they should not be perpetuating this industry.
	I do not know how many people are aware that Barnardo’s is working hard to come up with specialist foster placements for children who have been trafficked. It is important that we use as many agencies as we can to help these children, who are mainly, but not exclusively, girls, and give them a proper life after they have come out of this terrible situation. I commend Barnardo’s for the work it is doing. We could probably engage with and help to fund other organisations to help with that work.
	I am pleased that the Government are making the effort to introduce this modern slavery Bill, because every day we see things in the national newspapers, and on national and local television, about different situations where girls, in particular, have been trafficked. It is often large groups of men who are grooming these children and moving them along to other cities. I know that the children in Derby were taken to Leeds and Birmingham—they were taken all over the country. They did not know where they were, because they did not know the geography of the country, and they could not escape because they were terrified.
	I feel strongly that the Government are working hard to put in place measures to stop this happening, and I look forward to getting the Bill before the House. Every one of us has a duty to speak out about this. I am pleased that we have heard from quite a lot of speakers, but of course it is difficult to get many speakers to participate on a Thursday afternoon. I am sorry about that, because this is such an important subject. I congratulate the Minister on the work he is doing. I am pleased to hear that the Prime Minister is behind this, as is the Home Secretary, and that everyone is working together to rid this country of this evil.

Michael Connarty: It is a great honour to speak for the first time with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. Scottish Members in particular will miss your wonderful interventions in Scottish business, which reflected your part-Scottish background and your knowledge. It was such a pleasure to see you upset the Scottish nationalists so often in Scotland questions; we will miss that greatly.
	Let me turn now to the terrible topic of modern-day slavery, and the fact that the Government have announced a Bill. I underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) that this is not a party political matter; it never has been. We have always urged the Government, regardless of who they are, to do more and to do better. After studying this topic and spending time at the Serious Organised Crime Agency, when I was part of the police service parliamentary scheme, I found that as we change our attack on the business—it is a worldwide business and a seriously organised crime network—the perpetrators change their business model. Women used to be forced into slavery and brought here by force. Now, they are being offered a new life. They are often EU citizens who have a right to come here. They are promised good jobs and a career and then find themselves entrapped in slavery and sexual exploitation. As we change our attack, we will find that the perpetrators change. It is a matter that every Government will have to deal with.
	The decade of work commenced when Anthony Steen, who has been mentioned often, took an interest in the trafficking of Roma children, who were trained to thieve on Southeastern trains and on the underground. There were large numbers of them, and they were clearly organised. They were all swept up by police and the social services and returned to their country of origin. Very few went into any form of support system in the UK. From that episode came Anthony’s interest, which infected all of us, and many of us became involved in the pre-2010 activities.
	I was also struck by a book by Baroness Cox called “This Immoral Trade”. It is a study of what happened in Burma and Sudan where people were trafficked in the old way. They were put into slave gangs and taken to slavers in the north of Africa where they were sold. They are now being bought back from those very slavers by their communities. It is a replication of what used to happen when people were taken to the colonies of the European countries. That practice is still going on. I spoke at the re-launch of the second edition of Baroness Cox’s book in the House of Lords last month. It was said that between 11 million and 17 million people are enslaved in the world at the moment. A number of types of slavery are used. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) mentioned the horrific practice whereby infants between the ages of three and eight are trafficked within their own country for sexual exploitation. It is a massive problem, but it is also a business and organised crime and we must treat it as such.
	The European dimension has been driven strongly by the Parliamentarians against Human Trafficking project, which is organised through ECPAT UK—End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and the Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes—and the Human Trafficking Foundation. We have travelled from country to country—and I have travelled as the lead Labour member without a political hat on—and spoken to people who have been working on the matter, to try to understand the dimensions and the methodology of the crime.
	A monitoring office in Bucharest looks at many of the countries around the Balkans, and it provided me with reports which I took back to the Human Trafficking
	Foundation. There are also people in Moldova, who are not yet in the EU but who are closely connected with Romania. The Portuguese have developed an amazing mapping and monitoring process. Using a mapping system used for the movement of traffic—the movement of lorries—they can map the movement of people and are becoming adept at watching the movement of people from Brazil into Portugal for the summer trade on the beaches. Then, in the winter, the traffickers move them into the cities, into indoor brothels. The Portuguese can cut that movement off and deal with the process there.
	The Netherlands has a good example of an ombudsperson who is responsible not just for human trafficking but for human trafficking and child exploitation. That is a dual role in a powerful, well-resourced independent organisation working with a lot of the NGOs and care organisations. The work is often spontaneous, as one incident leads to involvement in further exploration and the bringing of information into the system.
	Whatever the Government do, it is key for us to keep very close to a network of NGOs. Unfortunately, at the moment the NGOs—all the numerous organisations that were written to—do not trust the system we have. I have been at a foundation NGO day with 50 different NGOs, and only half a dozen have ever replied when a Government organisation has asked them for information because they feel that they have a responsibility to protect the victims they have helped release and who they are looking after. They worry that if those victims get into the system, they will immediately be treated as criminals, either for immigration reasons or for some other form of criminal activity they were exploited and trafficked for, and that they will therefore be sent home and treated as criminals.
	The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) talked about people in cannabis farms. There was a cannabis farm in a big house next door to me just a year ago. The house had first been used by people from Lithuania who would go around and steal all the charity bags that had been put out for charitable organisations, but they were driven out and it was taken over by a mysterious organisation. We reported it to the police, but they did not act quickly enough and in the middle of the night a large lorry turned up, took all the lamps and all the cannabis and unfortunately the woman—I could not quite get her age—who was trapped in the house and brought food by a gentleman every couple of nights.
	That was a trafficked person who was taken on and will no doubt be trafficked somewhere else, but what if she had been caught? In the Scottish young offenders institution in my constituency, Polmont, one can sadly find four Vietnamese young men who are there because they were found guilty of the crime of cannabis farming. They were all trafficked and they were all victims, but the standard procedure is to treat them as criminals. I have no doubt that when they come out they will be sent back to Vietnam.
	One of the television channels I was watching—CBS, I think—is running a campaign against human trafficking, focusing on Cambodia, next to Vietnam. That channel is talking about making programmes—I think one will be on next week—about the trafficking in Cambodia. I think that trafficking from Cambodia to Thailand was what was being talked about, but Cambodia is just like Vietnam. It is an open-access country where young
	people who want to get out of their country might pay a lot of money to be trafficked before ending up in criminality or some form of exploitation.
	As we go around the EU, we try to get the best practice. I do not know how it is going, but I hope that the Human Trafficking Foundation will be successful in winning further support from the EU to take on the next stage of the process by getting every country that has theoretically signed up to the directive on human trafficking to implement it properly. In a lot of countries, it has not even been implemented as well as it is here, and I have some criticisms of how we have carried out the duties of implementing it in this country. I hope that that situation will be improved by the Bill.
	We have heard about trafficking into the UK, trafficking across the UK and trafficking out of the UK. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) talked about the problem in his constituency of men being trafficked to Sweden out of the UK to be used as unpaid slaves in the construction industry in that country.
	We have also heard about domestic slavery, and I join those who have criticised the Government. I do not see that as party political, but as speaking against a silly thing that was done—that is, the abolition of the one thing that gave domestic servants, or slaves, even if they were brought in as a family as they sometimes are, the chance to have a domestic servants visa. That meant that they could leave a bad family and, usually through Kalayaan and the police, find another employer as long as their visa allowed them to stay.
	I understand that the Government said that every year maybe 40 or 50 people out of the thousands involved used that concession to stay behind and disappear, but it protected those young women—it is mainly young women—from being beaten, treated “worse than the dogs”, fed the scraps off the table of the families they lived with, and sleeping in cupboards. They could leave that behind and find a better employer while they had a domestic servant visa. That does not exist any more—it is now a six-month visa. But most people do not come in with visas; they come in as members of families. They are then kept with the family and treated in the most appalling way, so I hope that the Government will find a way of reinstating the protection of domestic workers in the UK.
	It is quite clear that sexual exploitation is still a target for traffickers. That is true of young women and young men. Across Europe, we find young men in particular countries being trafficked in for sexual exploitation—rent boys, I think they call them in London. But they are even younger than that; they are children, because some men particularly like young boys. They are exploited in many ways. They are exploited for begging. They are exploited by fake families for benefit fraud; quite a lot of that goes on. They are trafficked also for thieving—they are trained to pickpocket in the cities of the UK and in Europe.
	We have to look at how we can keep the criminalisation of the victim away from the care of the victim. It is unfortunate that it became mixed up in the debate about immigration. We have to look at immigration. We heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) say that there is nobody in the House as tough as he is when it comes to the idea of restricting immigration. He is part of the balanced immigration group in Parliament, along with senior Conservative Members, but he does not want to see this mixed up
	with the immigration problem; it is a different matter. These people are brought in, maybe with promises, with delusions that they would be coming to a better life, and then abused. We should tackle that. We found when we talked to NGOs that the excessive focus on immigration substantially impacts on the confidence of victims in speaking to the UK Border Agency, and in speaking to the police authorities who, if the Bill is correct, will be their best saviour rather than their biggest threat.
	I want to say a word or two about the Scottish situation, because I am the only Scottish Member speaking in the debate. There is a parallel debate going on in Scotland. We had a strange comment by the Justice Minister after the launch of the inquiry into human trafficking in Scotland, which I went to. It was chaired by Helena Kennedy, Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws. When I said to him that many things in the inquiry could be taken forward into a Bill, the Justice Minister, who is known for being a bit sharp, and whom I have known for a long time, said, “The trouble with us is the UK Border Agency, Michael. If we could do something about them, we could do something about human trafficking.” He felt very strongly indeed that because it was a UK matter, it was the UK Border Agency that distorted Scottish Ministers’ wish to do something about it.
	I want to mention three elements very quickly. First, in 2011 a document called “Scotland: A safe place for child traffickers?” by Tam Baillie, the children’s commissioner, shocked Scotland. It was not, “Scotland: A safe place for trafficked children?” but “Scotland: A safe place for child traffickers?” He could identify 200 children trafficked into Scotland over a period of 18 months.
	There was then an inquiry by the Equality and Human Rights Commission into human trafficking. Its report came out in October 2011. It was very far-reaching—I think much more visionary than anything we had had in responding at a UK level to the human trafficking directive. It talked about some elements which I shall mention in a minute.
	Finally, there is now a draft Bill on human trafficking and modern-day slavery headed up by Jenny Marra, MSP for Dundee. The Scottish Parliament is considering the matter with a Bill before them that they can look at—a fully laid out Bill, rather than what we have at the moment, which is some rumours and some whispers and some wishes about what our Bill will contain. The process that we follow may produce a much more comprehensive Bill, but I was very impressed with the Bill proposed by Jenny Marra for Scotland.

John Randall: Interestingly, Jenny Marra gave evidence before our panel, so we have seen and read the draft Bill.

Michael Connarty: That is excellent, because I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough that it would be a good idea to have Jenny Marra down to the all-party group to discuss with her the thinking behind her Bill. I spoke at a conference with her in Glasgow about the fact that if the Bill became law, it would need to contain a framework to deal with events such as the Olympics, or the Commonwealth games in Glasgow, which represent a truly attractive opportunity for human traffickers to profit and prosper.
	I understand that there is a proposal—the Minister may correct me—that the UK anti-slavery Bill will contain a better definition of the crime. We currently use anti-sex trade Acts that are years, if not decades, out of date. It would be good to know what the crime is and for it to be defined as widely as possible. There should be a clear prosecution policy and a sentencing policy that makes it clear to people that if they are caught, it will result not in a small fine or a few years in jail, but in a long period in jail—up to life imprisonment, I hope, for anyone caught running a major criminal operation in human trafficking and slavery.
	During the inquiry in Scotland, we heard the idea that other crimes could be made more severe by being defined as aggravated by human trafficking. At present, many traffickers go to prison for other small crimes, not for the crime of human trafficking. I understand from the Serious Organised Crime Agency that that change would make the tariff high enough to provide access to the criminals’ money. As SOCA said, to follow the crime, follow the money. That is important. At the launch of the Scottish inquiry, the Advocate-General spoke in favour of such a change.
	There should be a commissioner-ombudsman, independent and well resourced, and a clear focus on asset reclamation. Since the activity is aimed at making money from the exploitation of humans, selling them cheaply or abusing their rights, if the authorities can get their hands on the money or the assets, that will hurt. It has been proposed that any money recovered should be used for anti-slavery purposes, rather than taken back into the Treasury like fines for speeding and so on. I suggest that we consider giving some of assets recovered to the Human Trafficking Foundation to make that a well-resourced organisation that does not just rely on charity, but is funded by the effectiveness of the campaign that it generates.
	I am told that efforts will be made to cover the question of extra-territoriality, as has been done, for example, in the case of sex tourism, whereby people caught in another country are deemed guilty in this country, as we saw in a recent case involving a pop star.
	We must respond to the reality of labour exploitation in UK supply chains. This is a plea, a hope and a wish. The Minister may make me happy or unhappy when he speaks. There are many organisations such as Walk Free set up by the owner of Fortescue from Australia, who now has 5 million people signed up as members of Walk Free, which exposes human trafficking and exploitation for sex and for cheap labour across the world. Every day members of the Walk Free network get e-mails asking them to send petitions and write to companies to try to stop that behaviour. There is also the organisation set up by the then world president of Manpower, which has tackled human trafficking through all its networks. The 2.5 million companies that Manpower deals with all have training and training manuals on how to look for human trafficking and how to get rid of it.
	I spoke to various organisations while preparing my Bill. The case that was exposed which everyone heard about in this country involved eggs and chickens for the Olympics. A special programme was carried out by the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which it would not
	normally do. The authority focused specifically on supplies to that event. It found that the chickens had been rounded up by Lithuanian men—40 of them kept in a big house and hounded from place to place by rottweilers. They were driven round the country, working 17 hours a day. By the time they had paid their so-called fare to get there and their dig money—their rent—they ended up with very little at all, and they were badly fed. The gangmaster was taken to court.
	The supply chain showed that those who delivered the eggs and the chickens to McDonald’s and to Sainsbury’s did not know that the people hired as gangmasters, who were licensed gangmasters, then hired Lithuanians, who were not gangmasters, to run the show for them. We have to think seriously about that. When I spoke to representatives of McDonald’s, they brought me a wonderful brochure about all the standards that those who sign up to supply the company should observe. It stated that workers should not be locked in or guarded, and that they should not be indebted to a recruitment agency. It is fabulous, but the company did not realise that it meant nothing. People signed bits of paper and put them in the bin or in a file.
	Between 12,000 and 18,000 companies in Britain have signed up to that ethical trading initiative, but none of them actually looks after the auditing or reporting to see whether it happens. I received a letter from the chief executive of Sainsbury’s telling me that he thought we should fight for more resources for the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which he told me was being downgraded. It had been “downgraded” by being taken into the Serious Organised Crime Agency to focus on serious crime, not the day-to-day abuses, as he would describe them. He thought that it was its job to audit his supply chain.
	We must have something in the Bill that tells companies, “We expect you to audit your supply chain and report to your shareholders, in writing and at your annual general meeting, on what you find. If you find something, eradicate it.” If we do not have that, we will continue to see cases such as the collapsed building in Dhaka, or women being burnt to death in garment factories because they had been locked in, or even chained in, and could not get out.
	It is no good saying, “Let the customer drive this.” When I talk with ordinary people—with Asda Mumdex, for example—they say, “Look, when we buy our kids clothes for the summer holiday, we go to the cheapest place”, because they cannot afford to shop somewhere that is ethically wonderful. I think that it is important that we drive the companies to improve their supply chains.
	Young people came to me when I was preparing my private Member’s Bill and suggested that we use stickers like the ones we used to have against apartheid, with a skull and crossbones, saying, “Contaminated by human trafficking.” They said that they would go around sticking them on clothes from Gap or Next, one of the companies that was found guilty, to let people know that they had been contaminated by human trafficking. But that is not the generality of it. People will either buy fashion garments because they are in vogue, or they will buy other garments from cheaper places because that is what they can afford. It is up to us, as a Parliament, to carry on this fight to the point where we make all those organisations responsible. By all of us pitching in, we will create a better world.

Stephen Barclay: The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) is absolutely right to focus on the acute risks in the supply chain, because subcontractors are often responsible for the worst abuses, particularly in relation to payslips and wage legislation. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), I think that the problem is particularly acute in rural communities. In recent years there has been a perception that it is largely confined to cities, so powerful speeches, such as the one my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire made, are helpful in highlighting the full extent of the problem right across the UK.
	I very much welcome the opportunity to have this debate before the draft legislation is published. There are three specific concerns relating to legislation that I do not think have been particularly well aired in the debate so far and that I therefore want to draw to the House’s attention. The first is the importance of wages being paid electronically. In parts of my constituency, such as the middle of the fenland farming community, the tradition is for gangmasters to make payments in cash. That lends itself to abuse, both of tax and in the form of deductions at source. As soon as the wage is paid in cash, deductions are often made for transport, food, counterfeit goods supplied and the debts that are part of the mis-selling that got people over to the UK in the first place, often on the false promise of jobs.
	The Home Office could learn some interesting lessons from the recent legislation banning cash payments in the scrap metal trade. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has a reputation for his commitment to detail and who has the great confidence of Government Members as the Minister introducing this legislation, will look at electronic payment, in particular, because that is a key enabler that could allow law enforcement agencies to track where abuse has taken place.
	It is wrong, particularly as regards the subcontracting that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk identified, that we allow so much cash payment to take place given its links to criminality and the abuse of people who are often not in a position to complain. Requiring payments in electronic would also deal with another common abuse whereby migrants, including those who come to my constituency, are misinformed by gangmasters that they are not allowed to have a bank account.
	My second point, which not been much aired, although the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) touched on it, is about the importance of having civil fines rather than requiring enforcement authorities always to pursue a criminal route, which is more resource-intensive and time-consuming and requires a higher standard of proof. The Gangmasters Licensing Authority possesses draconian criminal sanctions, but they are very rarely used. In the past two years, it issued 300 warning notices but undertook just 11 criminal prosecutions. The sorts of penalties imposed in those prosecutions are very ineffective. In two cases in Northern Ireland, the fine was just £500. I do not think anyone would imagine that the profits made did not exceed that sum.
	The fact that 300 warning notices were issued gives us an idea of the gap between enforcement and the scale of the problem. There is sympathy within the Department
	for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the idea of further empowering bodies such as the GLA. Guidance issued in 2012 by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), in relation to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 curtails the ability to issue civil penalties against firms with fewer than 250 people. My right hon. Friend has a well-deserved reputation as a champion of tackling red tape, and I fully support him in that, but I do not think for a minute that it would ever be his intention to protect those guilty of criminality. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will consider dealing with that issue in the Bill so as to make it less resource-intensive for enforcement bodies to take action against those abusing the vulnerable within our communities.
	The third issue that I want to bring to my hon. Friend’s attention is the definition of an HMO—a house in multiple occupation. In recent months, we have seen excellent progress in North East Cambridgeshire in taking action to restore confidence within the community. Last month, we had Operation Endeavour, with 300 officers conducting dawn raids and making 10 arrests. The problem is that most of the houses raided were not HMOs even though they had 20-plus people living in them, because an HMO is defined as a house with three storeys. Indeed, there is some contradiction between that definition and part of the local authority definition. That takes us on to a further point about clarity as regards what enforcement action should be taking place ahead of the legislation. To what extent should letting agencies be putting in place tenancy agreements? Is there a requirement for tenancy agreements?
	I mentioned the abuse of wage slips. When I tabled a parliamentary question last week, I found that there had not been a single prosecution for the abuse of wage slips, so we have existing legislation that is not being enforced. The same is happening with the abuse of planning legislation. My local council has issued many a letter warning rogue landlords to change their behaviour, but to date it has not enforced it. I welcome the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), on pilot funding to tackle rogue landlords. Fenland district council has made a bid for such funding. I spoke to him about that earlier this week, and I look forward to the announcement on it. Before we legislate again, it is crucial that we enforce existing legislation and clarify why the issue of 20-plus people living in a house, which leads to many antisocial problems, including street drinking, urination on streets and community tension, is not being tackled by local authorities through prosecution.
	I make a plea to the Minister about resource allocation. This House has a tendency to legislate and then to assume that the job is done, but legislation is effective only if it is enforced. This is a problem in the fens, which is hidden and where the crime is often unreported because people’s backgrounds mean they are too afraid to report to the authorities or because they have language difficulties and are isolated and vulnerable. They have been misled into coming to the UK in the first place, have got into debt and have then been abused. Women in particular are led into debt much more quickly and then pressured into sham marriages, abuse and prostitution as a consequence.
	It is important to look at the resource allocation. The Home Secretary’s recent launch of the National Crime Agency is particularly welcome, because it is ideally placed to take a leadership role on the issue. Where I am in the fens—on the border of three counties—people often work one minute in Lincolnshire, the next in Norfolk and then in Cambridgeshire, so the issue is not always applicable to a county police force. The NCA has a role in tasking regional organised crime units and in looking at the resource allocation and where the issue sits in its priorities. What will the budget allocation be? Rather than advising on arrests, as the NCA did very helpfully on Operation Endeavour, to what extent will it take investigations through to prosecution? Will it also be able to address the second and third waves, given that each enforcement activity tends to be finite in terms of the number of crime gangs that can be investigated at any one time? The issue of resource allocation needs to sit alongside any announcement about legislation. I hope the Minister will provide clarity on that.
	The NCA also has a role to play with regard to the source country. As a number of Members have said, this is an international issue. In the case of the fens, people from Latvia and Lithuania—dare I say that this will also be true of people from Bulgaria and Romania in the months ahead?—are being misled and told that they can have a job and accommodation, only to find that the situation is different when they get here. Such a case was raised with me just last week. Someone was brought into my constituency on that basis and told that his job was to drive. When he pointed out that he could not drive, he was told that either he drove—which would have obvious, various risks to other motorists—or he would be out on his ear without a job. The important role that the NCA should play in the source country has a resource implication and that needs to sit with the legislation.
	The leadership shown on this issue by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary sends a remarkably powerful signal of the Government’s commitment—there is also cross-party commitment—to tackling this horrific issue in our communities. I welcome the proposed legislation, which will make it easier for us to act and build on the wonderful work done in the previous Parliament. I wish the Minister well in addressing any further areas where we can tighten up the rules.

Meg Hillier: It is a great pleasure to speak on this very important topic and I congratulate hon. Members on securing the debate. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), whom I want to defend, because her opening speech was not party political, as the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) claimed. My hon. Friend’s work over many years, including leading the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, and the way in which she has challenged Governments of any colour, belie that claim.
	The Minister is a good Minister and I do not think he is afraid to be challenged by Opposition or Government Members on this issue. I know that he welcomes challenges to improve legislation and that he genuinely listens and
	will take on board our points. My hon. Friend’s comments were made in that respect. It is unfair to bring party politics into an issue on which we all agree that something needs to and must be done.
	It also gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), who made some typically thoughtful comments. I want to pick up his point about bank accounts, which is a big issue for the Minister and it is at the heart of not only this but other questions. Over the years, I have employed people to look after my children. One young woman was unable to get a bank account. It did not mean the end of her employment—it ended eventually—but she repeatedly could not get one. That is often a convenient excuse, because it means that people can dodge being in the system.
	The issue is important in relation to both people who are trafficked and become victims, because they are told that they cannot get a bank account, and those trying to hide below the radar. There is a genuine issue about the ability of banks to provide people with basic bank accounts. The number of hoops they now have to go through in providing identification can make it genuinely challenging, and it is sometimes seen as very difficult. In that respect, the Minister may want to challenge the banks, through his ministerial contacts, to address the point made by the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire.
	I have had a long interest in modern-day slavery and other issues that I want to raise. I first came across unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the mid-1990s, when I was chair of neighbourhood services on Islington council. Young children would be found wandering up and down Holloway road with no papers and very vague stories about where they had come from, and they ended up being put into the care of social services. Many of them had been trafficked, but identification was very difficult. The borough of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), Hillingdon, was also greatly affected. Two of the hot spots were Hillingdon—perhaps obviously, because of the airport—and Islington.
	That demonstrates that trafficking takes many forms. We have heard a lot about the workplace, and I will touch less on that than on other matters. As hon. Members have said, not all victims are locked up: freedoms can be restricted in many ways.
	I recently visited Nigeria with the all-party group on Nigeria, which I chair. We went to look at human rights, but we were very shocked to discover some of the issues concerning children’s rights and child trafficking in particular. Nigeria is the main source country for people trafficked into this country, so it is vital that great thought is given to whether a British Bill can help to tackle the issue in the countries of origin. We need to prevent and tackle trafficking at source, not just carry out enforcement, although I agree with other hon. Members that enforcement is also important.
	Benin City in Nigeria is the capital of human trafficking. As we have heard, people who have been trafficked become traffickers in turn, and there is a sort of career progression in Benin. The Nigerian authorities are aware of and keen to tackle that real hot spot. The all-party group met those at the national agency dealing with child trafficking, which is working hard to identify, tackle and prosecute people, as well as to prevent trafficking
	from happening in the first place, but they are few in number and resources are limited, while Nigeria is a huge and populous country.
	From a British perspective, there are also deeply ingrained and worrying cultural attitudes, but I know from speaking to many of them both in this country and Nigeria that Nigerians share such concerns. The domestic servitude of children is widely accepted, and the all-party group was shocked to hear it defended very often when we raised it in talking to people in various circles.
	Child traffickers are aided by the poverty, and by profits that can be made along the line. Those profits, as someone is trafficked through the hands of perhaps 12 traffickers, are immense. Until we look at the supply chain involving trafficked people and work out how to tackle each of its stages, we will not solve the source problem of people being brought into the UK, although enforcement should continue.

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Lady is speaking with a good, deep understanding of the problem. Along with Hillingdon and her constituency, Solihull has also been a dispersal area for asylum-seeking children. Her point about it being very hard for certain local authorities with many trafficked children to have the necessary expertise at local government level to reach into foreign, and sometimes very chaotic, countries of origin makes the case for a multi-agency, multi-departmental approach, particularly to assist local authorities that are severely affected.

Meg Hillier: The hon. Lady makes a good point. For the record, I should make it clear that I was talking about my time in Islington in the mid-1990s, but there are issues in Hackney in my constituency, and I will touch on them.
	In Nigeria, the all-party group saw some good practice. I would particularly highlight the yellow card for children’s rights that Lagos provides to as many agencies as possible to tell people what children’s rights are, which the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) described. There is strong legislation in Nigeria to support children’s rights, but the desire to tackle such problems is not as widespread as it could be and they are often excused. We heard of terrible situations in which very young girls are raped and the rapist then buys off the family for less than the price of a parking ticket in the UK because of the shame. The girl will find it very hard to get married if she has the stain of rape on her and it brings shame on the family. Sometimes that is just a criminal matter, but sometimes it is to do with trafficking.
	I commend the report of the all-party group to the Minister. It is worth reading because it highlights the challenges in Nigeria and the need to highlight human rights across that country. That is a wider issue than the subject of this debate, but the report makes interesting points about trafficking and its impact on children.
	I want to make a couple of points to the Minister while he is forming the modern slavery Bill. I reiterate what colleagues have said about domestic worker visas. Many families in Nigeria see domestic servitude as the norm. People excuse it and say, “The girl from the village is getting educated. What’s the problem?” However, the girl from the village does not have the freedom to move. Sometimes, families bring such individuals to the
	UK. Domestic worker visas did provide some protection. The Minister will know that no immigration system is perfect and that people will exploit bits around the edges whatever system is in place. However, things have gone too far the other way and the Minister needs to ensure that domestic workers are supported. If he does so, it might stem the flow of such workers into the country and act as a preventive measure.
	The Minister for Immigration mentioned in a recent sitting of the Immigration Public Bill Committee that Operation Paladin is still in operation. I would be keen to hear more details from the Minister, if not in this debate then at another time, on how it is working across different airports. The operation was introduced in Gatwick. Trained professionals watched the people who were coming into the airport to see whether the children were related to them. They could recognise whether a child was trafficked and intervene. That does not prevent trafficking, but it does stop it at the border. Given the announcement about further cuts to the Home Office budget, I would be interested to hear whether there is a threat to Operation Paladin or whether there are plans to extend it. At the very least, it should be continued. As the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire said, if we are serious about a human trafficking Bill, we should be enforcing the law as it stands and keeping the mechanisms that work.
	Identifying the victims is obviously a big issue. I have had experience of that in my constituency. The national referral mechanism is important, but it should not be an alternative to well briefed local agencies, whether they be social services or schools. There is an opportunity, perhaps not in legislation but certainly in practice, to ensure that schools can recognise and understand trafficked children. Churches and community groups can also have a role. Often, vicars in my constituency meet trafficked people and are able to have a more honest conversation with them than they have had with other people. I have met trafficked people, but it has usually been long after they have been trafficked.
	Schools in Hackney praise the forced marriage unit for its swift action. If they report a suspected forced marriage, the team is down there straight away. Usually that is the day before the school holidays or very close to them. We need something similar to happen if there is a suspicion of trafficking while the child is in a safe place. Schools and other agencies need to have somewhere they can go. That goes back to what the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire and the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) said about the need for a national approach.
	We know that the most trafficked group of people is children. In 2012, 500 children were identified, but we know that the number of trafficked children is likely to be higher. That is one reason why having a commissioner would be a good idea. It would help us to get proper data, which would allow us to see what progress is being made and to highlight the scale of the problem for the public. In reality, a lot of trafficked people live below the radar for many years. That makes it very difficult to track down the perpetrators.
	There is a delicate balance to be struck, because if anyone who said that they had been trafficked 10 years ago got to stay in the country, it would provide traffickers with an incentive. I am aware that the Minister has to tread that line. We must not incentivise people to use children as a way to get different treatment in the
	immigration system. It is important to acknowledge that issue, but that does not mean that we should not take robust action or support trafficked children as much as we can.
	My big concern is people who are trafficked and appear many years later. I regularly meet young people in my surgery. Usually they appear at the point when they might want to go to university and therefore need status in this country. On questioning they are vague about what happened—an aunt or friend of the family brought them in, but they have lost touch with that adult. That child is not at fault, but the people who trafficked them have gone—although sometimes we cannot be sure—and they have great difficulty getting through the system.
	Sometimes people are not enslaved, as such, although it is difficult to be sure. I spoke to one woman at my surgery, and we eventually got to a point in the conversation where I said, “You have two children, who is the father?”—I was asking about the father’s citizenship. I said, “Did you want to sleep with the father of the children?” and she shrugged and said, “He gave me somewhere to stay.” In some ways she did not consider herself a victim because she had been downtrodden to the point where she needed a roof over her head, and in return the man got what he wanted. There are real challenges in identifying victims who have been under the radar for so long that there is no likely prospect of finding their trafficker. That is a two-pronged issue for the Minister: tackling the perpetrators, but also supporting the victims.
	The national reporting mechanism includes a reflection period of 45 days to decide what to do with a potential victim of trafficking, but that does not capture people who have some freedoms but no paperwork or the ability to do what they want, even if they can come and go out of the house and are not locked away. The system also does not cover the needs of those who will be slow to tell their story, often for reasons of fear—I will touch on some issues with African abuse in a moment.
	Victims must be eligible for legal aid. I know that is not the Minister’s Department, but we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I have criticised much of the Government’s attitude to legal aid, but I recognise that that is where we are. For the purposes of this debate, however, I say to the Minister that I—and Members across the House, I am sure—will be behind him if we can ensure that people have the right advice once they have been identified as a potential victim of trafficking. That is important because it helps the system work better. In the long term it will save the Home Office money, as well as ensuring that that person has the best support possible to get their case across and be relocated home, if appropriate, or supported in the UK.
	At the beginning of my remarks I said that prevention was the most important thing. The Home Office is promising to work with source countries, but we need resources for that to happen. We hear that often, a law passed in this Parliament helps Nigerians to tackle corruption and so on, and similarly, if we get this issue right we may help tackle it in Nigeria. I think we need a review of our national reporting mechanism.
	I said I would touch on issues concerning child abuse in Africa, although adults are trafficked too. Traffickers often use witchcraft and juju as a means of control. Juju priests are held in high esteem and command a great
	deal of respect which, when combined with a fear of witchcraft, means that many people are very vulnerable. People are afraid of what will happen to them if they declare they have been trafficked. That fear is hard to understand from the perspective of many Members in the Chamber today, but it is very real. People are much controlled and will not escape even if given the chance—it is as much of a ball and chain as a physical one would be. Trafficking victims in the UK often display signs that are identifiable with juju and witchcraft, and the torso of Adam, found floating in the Thames, first highlighted that very spectacularly to the UK.
	The key issue is identifying victims, as too often that is a barrier. I hope that an anti-slavery commissioner can be genuinely empowered with investigation arms and good links to the National Crime Agency and other police as appropriate, and I will be watching the Government on that issue. The modern slavery unit should not be a passing fad in the Home Office, but something real that will engage people. I commend my colleagues for initiating this debate, and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Diana Johnson: I congratulate the hon. Members who secured this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), the excellent chair of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern day slavery, made a powerful and well-informed speech. She did so in an inclusive way, and paid tribute to her predecessor, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), after what was obviously a hard-fought election for the position of chair. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) also talked about the need to put victims at the heart of the Bill and for us to lead the world with a modern slavery Bill. I also pay tribute to Anthony Steen, who did so much to raise this issue in the last Parliament, and to Baroness Butler-Sloss, who takes a keen interest in this matter in the other place.
	Given that we are debating slavery, it gives me special pride to speak from the Front Bench as a Hull MP. We have heard many mentions this afternoon of William Wilberforce, who was also a Hull MP and one of the leaders of a 20-year campaign to bring about the abolition of the slave trade. In a Back-Bench debate, it is important to note that he did that entirely from the Back Benches. The full horror of the slave trade is remembered at the excellent William Wilberforce museum in Hull, which I would encourage all hon. Members to visit when they visit our city as the city of culture in 2017 or before. We are also fortunate to have the Wilberforce institute for the study of slavery and emancipation, which is attached to the university of Hull and provides great information. I am sure that it will also offer support to hon. Members looking at the draft Bill.
	It is worth reminding the House that when the slave trade was abolished, through William Wilberforce’s Bill becoming an Act of Parliament, it was felt appropriate to compensate the slave owners, not the victims. It is shocking now, but the family of the Liberal Prime Minister William Gladstone received £93,526 in compensation for losing their 2,039 slaves after abolition. Several hon. Members have made the point that we hope that any proceeds that are available will go to the victims of this dreadful crime, and perhaps also to the police and the Human Trafficking Foundation.
	I pay tribute to all those who have contributed to this excellent debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) spoke knowledgeably, as ever, about the needs of trafficked children, and about the need for multi-agency safeguarding hubs to be extended to every area. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) talked in some harrowing detail about child abuse and slavery in India, and shocked all hon. Members when he talked about children as young as three being used as prostitutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) talked knowledgeably about the EU dimension as well as the Scottish experience, and the need for the auditing of supply chains.
	The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) paid tribute to the NGOs—very important—and also raised the issue of supply chains. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) talked harrowingly about his constituency experience of 23 British slaves who had been slaves for up to 15 years, and about the vital work that needs to be done to raise public awareness of the issue. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) talked about the global sex trade and the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) talked about the need to make sure that people understand it happens anywhere—down our own streets and roads. The hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) talked about the particular issues of electronic payments and civil penalties that could be used. He made some very interesting points and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them.
	I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). As a former Home Office Minister and chair of the all-party group on Nigeria, she spoke knowledgeably on issues related to her experience in those roles.
	We know, and we have heard again today, that modern-day slavery exists. We think that there are around 27 million people enslaved around the world. The UK Human Trafficking Centre estimates that at least 2,200 human beings were trafficked into the UK in 2012. In 2009, the Home Affairs Committee held an investigation into human trafficking and it estimated that the number is likely to be nearer 5,000. Just two weeks ago in Lambeth we saw three women escape from what appears to have been 30 years of enslavement. Few people can understand how that could happen on an ordinary street in south London, but although that is an extreme case, it is far from isolated.
	Modern-day slavery is on the rise. Human beings, mainly women and children, are being trafficked into and within the UK to work as labourers, domestic servants, prostitutes, cannabis farmers, forced beggars and to do a whole range of other jobs. We have had a number of excellent suggestions this afternoon on what can be done to tackle this practice, and I know that the Minister will have been listening carefully.
	I put on record that the Opposition support the principle of such an important Bill on modern-day slavery. We will work constructively with the Government to ensure the Bill passes within the limited parliamentary time available, and we will press for a Bill that does all that is needed to address this horrendous practice. I stress that the Opposition will be looking for a Bill that puts victims at its centre and the first step is to recognise who the victims are. The situations into which people
	are trafficked either from outside or within the UK are disparate and we need a system that recognises that. It is not just neighbours, such as those in the Lambeth case, who fail to recognise victims in their midst. Too many cases are missed by the police, social workers, health workers and immigration staff.
	We need frontline professionals across a range of sectors to be trained to recognise trafficking in all its forms. There has to be an understanding that enslavement does not have to mean chains or cellars. Once we have identified victims, we need to give them protection and support, and that is where we think the current system is left wanting. There is a national referral mechanism to collate information on victims, but it is currently not fit for purpose. As I mentioned, the UK Human Trafficking Centre, in collaboration with the Serious Organised Crime Agency, identified 2,255 human trafficking victims, whereas the NRM identified 1,186. The failure is equally pronounced for children: the UK Human Trafficking Centre identified 549 child victims in 2012, while the NRM identified 349. We think the true figure is probably much higher. Given that there are 23 bodies authorised to refer to the NRM, the Government need to address urgently the multiple deficiencies in the system that are stopping referrals. One measure the Opposition support fully is the introduction of a commissioner to oversee the proper collection and use of information.
	Once we have identified victims, we have to ensure that the support is there to look after them. The support required will depend on the circumstances in which people have been trafficked. We must not criminalise human trafficking victims. We have to move away from a situation where the first instinct of the authorities is to treat people as an immigration problem rather than as victims. If we are to get more prosecutions, the first stage has to be to identify and protect the victims. They will be then be more willing to come forward as witnesses.
	We know that support for child victims is a particular weakness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said, a horrifying 60% of child victims taken into care go missing. One local authority admitted to losing 90% of children. This happens because the strength of the bond between child victim and trafficker is not diminished when the child is taken into care. Factors that made the child vulnerable in the first place remain and often the trafficker will retain a psychological hold. Without special provision, the child will often return to the trafficker. This is especially true if the child is repatriated. I welcome the vital cross-border work being done to minimise the risks to children when they are returned home.
	Trafficked children in the UK require specialist care that is tailored to their individual circumstances. That kind of tailored care will only be provided if trafficked children are given specialist and independent guardians. That system has worked elsewhere in Europe, and, as the Minister will know, was set out in the EU directive on human trafficking. The Government have so far decided not to introduce a system of guardians, but I hope they will look at that again. The Government’s own review, “Still at Risk”, which was commissioned by the Home Office, was unequivocal about the need for guardians.
	Domestic workers were mentioned, as was the need for a review of the changes introduced to the domestic workers visa. Statistics presented by hon. Members make the case to consider their unintended consequences.
	On prosecutions, the Opposition will certainly support the Government in increasing the penalties for convictions for offences relating to human trafficking, but will look to the Government to introduce aggravated offences for such cases as well. We would also support the inclusion of the specific offence of child trafficking and exploitation, which currently does not exist. I pay tribute to ECPAT for highlighting that particular issue.
	In conclusion, I commend the Government for their commitment to introducing a modern slavery Bill, but I urge them not to waste the opportunity before us. There would be many more prosecutions if we could identify more victims and give them the support and protection they need to become witnesses and then help them to rebuild their lives. Unless the Bill recognises that, we will waste a great opportunity. I want to finish by quoting William Wilberforce’s words to the House of Commons on 12 May 1789, which I think sum up the position today:
	“The nature and all the circumstances of this trade are now laid open to us; we can no longer plead ignorance, we cannot evade it”.—[Official Report, 12 May 1789; Vol. 28, c. 63.]

James Brokenshire: It is clear from all that we have heard in this debate that modern slavery is a brutal crime that knows no boundaries and does not discriminate on grounds of creed, culture or race. Traffickers and slave masters exploit whatever means they have at their disposal to coerce, deceive and force individuals into a life of abuse, servitude and inhumane treatment.
	That is why I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee and, in particular, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing this timely debate, when the Government are finalising their draft Bill on modern slavery. The hon. Lady made a passionate speech. I recognise that for many years she has felt strongly about and campaigned on this important policy matter, which affects so many of our communities. We will reflect on many of the comments made this afternoon, even if the limited time available does not allow me to comment in detail now. I recognise the important contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and his role supporting the work of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern day slavery when he chaired it, and the many other people who have sought to ensure that this House properly considers this important issue and is better informed about it.
	I was struck by several of the comments made and descriptions given by right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon as they sought to describe modern slavery and trafficking. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) described it as “evil”, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) as an “abomination”. In describing the impact of child slavery, the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) talked about children being “commodities for profit”. What an appalling description, but a sad reality.
	We also got a sense of the lack of visibility. I have spoken about the need to shine a light on this appalling issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) talked about the comment: “It doesn’t
	happen here, does it?” Well, we know that it does. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who has seen that starkly in his constituency, summed up how in many ways this crime can be in plain view and yet somehow not seen. That underlines the need for further training, which is one practical element towards ensuring that front-line professionals, as well as the public, have greater knowledge and awareness. The contribution of the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) underlined the appalling and sick nature of this problem when he highlighted the age of some of the children involved, which brings the issue home.
	Yesterday I had the privilege to visit ECPAT to speak to some child victims of trafficking. I heard their testimony directly and found out about the impact of this problem on them. I discussed what more we could do to support victims by identifying them and ensuring that the practical services are in place to provide support.
	This afternoon’s contributions were encouraging in that they have shown a clear and strong desire across the House to work closely together to rid the UK of this evil.

Andrew Selous: Will the Minister have time in the course of his remarks to respond on the issue of the awareness cards and whether the Home Office could look at distributing them across the UK?

James Brokenshire: Awareness is a key issue. It will be a question of seeing what will work in different areas. Before attending this debate, I was at a conference on how social media can be a very good way to help promote debate about child trafficking. I also went to the launch of something called the cube network, which involved passing around wooden cubes to identify problems and raise awareness. There are a number of ways of achieving this, but it is quite clear that we need to ensure greater awareness at each level.
	We do not know the full extent and nature of the criminality involved, hence the work of the hon. Member for Slough and the all-party group to seek to identify information more clearly. That was clear, too, from the contribution of the hon. Member for Stockport. We have seen figures coming through the national referral mechanism relating to the provision of support to victims, and information from the UK Human Trafficking Centre is also relevant. I am clear, however, that that understates the position, and I expect the numbers to rise over the coming years. I see it as a good thing, not a bad thing, if we are better able to identify those in need of support. We will be strengthening our enforcement response by bringing to justice those responsible for these heinous crimes.
	The Government are absolutely committed to combating human trafficking and to supporting and protecting the victims of these appalling crimes. We have announced plans to introduce a modern slavery Bill, which will strengthen our response to human trafficking and underpin the work of law enforcement agencies in prosecuting the perpetrators. In so doing, we shall be able to identify more victims and ensure that these crimes are prevented.
	The Bill will consolidate existing trafficking offences to make it simpler to prosecute human traffickers. It is important to assist law enforcement to achieve that. It is intended to increase the maximum sentence for trafficking offences to life imprisonment, so that modern-day slave-drivers
	will face the full force of the law. The Bill will introduce an anti-slavery commissioner to oversee efforts to tackle modern slavery and help to facilitate more prosecutions and convictions of human traffickers.
	The Bill is also about the here and now. I want the draft Bill to make a difference. It is that crucial first building block. I think it was the right hon. Member for Birkenhead who said that we were on a journey, and I see this as part of a continuing journey because this important Bill will lead to further action that could be taken by successive Governments over the years ahead as well.
	How to support activity without legislation—the practical issues—is another key point, and it is important that the Home Secretary has made tackling human trafficking a priority for the new National Crime Agency, which will provide strong national leadership to drive forward prosecutions and bring traffickers to justice. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), along with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and others, highlighted the need for greater enforcement. Victim care is also fundamental to our comprehensive approach to combating trafficking, and we have guaranteed up to £4 million a year to fund specialist support for adult victims of human trafficking.
	The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) spoke about the national referral mechanism. I can tell her that the Home Secretary has committed herself to a review of the national referral mechanism to establish how it is working and what further improvements can be made. I am conscious that this is about the here and now, and about what useful steps can be taken.
	I have referred to the flagship Bill that we intend to introduce. In order to ensure that it will have the right impact, the Home Secretary has asked the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, in his role as vice-chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation and as a member of the Centre for Social Justice advisory council, to lead an urgent public debate about practical and effective ways of ending modern slavery in the United Kingdom. It will take the form of a series of evidence sessions hosted by the Centre for Social Justice. The Human Trafficking Foundation has facilitated the participation of key witnesses from abroad to help us to draw on best practice.
	I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, and to Baroness Butler-Sloss for taking evidence for the Centre for Social Justice. I also want to recognise the contribution of Anthony Steen, who has been appointed special envoy to the Home Secretary. He will consider what needs to be done to improve our response, focusing particularly on what happens overseas and on how we can ensure that an end-to-end approach is taken.
	I should make it absolutely clear to the hon. Member for Slough that the Salvation Army and its subcontractors have not been prevented from speaking to the evidence sessions. I understand that each of them has been contacted personally by Ministry of Justice officials who have encouraged them to make their important contributions to the process. I want to ensure that, as we proceed with the draft Bill, the pre-legislative scrutiny and, subsequently, the Bill in its final form, we have an opportunity to consider all the input—and that will
	include careful reflection on much of what has been said today about issues such as non-prosecution and domestic abuse.
	I believe that the debate has sent a clear and ringing message about our commitment to ensuring that this appalling crime is dealt with firmly, effectively and finally for the benefit of all the victims of this appalling trade, and to achieving together what I think we all want to achieve: the consigning of modern slavery to the history books, which is where it ought to be.

Fiona Mactaggart: I think that I have had a unique experience today: this is the first time in my 17 years in Parliament that I have agreed with almost every single word of every single speech in a debate. I thank all who have contributed, particularly the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), whose endorsement of the call for the return of the overseas domestic worker visa is, in my view, likely to have much more impact than anything that I might say. I hope that we can work together to ensure that that happens.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) conveyed the voice of victims to us very powerfully. I loved the call from the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for us all to become, in effect, dropped-kerb vigilantes; I think that if we take up that challenge, we shall be able to find a practical way of preventing modern-day slavery. The call from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) for specialist foster care for children was echoed by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), whose reference to the excellent Barnardo’s pilot scheme reminded us of the need for practical action. Strikingly, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) emphasised, from opposite sides of the House, the importance of action to deal with the international sex trade in children. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) asked specifically whether we could make trafficking and slavery an aggravating factor in sentencing.
	I entirely understand why the Minister was not able to answer every question that he was asked, and I thank him for his specific response to the challenge that I issued about victims’ organisations. I hope that during the debate which will carry on he will be able to answer some of the very practical challenges that we have heard during this debate. Specifically, I hope he will address the call by the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) for civil penalties to be part of the suite of actions that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority can take and for more effective actions on houses in multiple occupation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) reminded us that practical—
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Business without Debate
	 — 
	BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (10 DECEMBER)

Motion made,
	That at the sitting on Tuesday 10 December, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means
	may be entered upon at any hour, and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business.
	—(Claire 
	Perry
	.)

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION
	 — 
	Heaton Chapel Train Station (Stockport)

Ann Coffey: It is my pleasure to present this petition on behalf of the Friends of Heaton Chapel Station.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Friends of Heaton Chapel train station,
	Declares that 619,506 passengers purchase tickets at Heaton Chapel train station every year; further declares that there is currently no disabled access to the train station; further declares that Heaton Chapel train station is not compliant with national legislation; and further declares that accessibility for disabled people at Heaton Chapel train station must be improved and barriers to transport removed in accordance with the Department for Transport’s March 2006 “Railways for All” strategy.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Transport to work in conjunction with Transport for Greater Manchester, Stockport MBC, Network Rail and Northern Rail to undertake an urgent feasibility study setting out a business case to support the provision of new disabled access facilities and further requests that the House urges the Department for Transport to give greater priority to improve Greater Heaton Chapel train station over all other less well used stations in Greater Manchester.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001308]

OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES (WATER SHORTAGES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Perry.)

David Winnick: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the acute water shortages in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Perhaps it would be useful if I started by referring to an article by Giles Fraser, who until recently was the canon chancellor at St Paul’s cathedral. While on a visit to a refugee camp near Jerusalem, he went to the local secondary school, which has 2,000—not 200—pupils. There had not been any running water there for some nine months—we can only imagine that type of situation. The pupils did not quite understand the purpose of the visit, but they hoped that it would bring the supply of water, but it did not.
	I checked with the Library yesterday to see whether there had been any response from the Israelis. Usually the Israeli embassy is quick to respond to criticism, but apparently there was no response to that article in a national newspaper, so I decided to look further into the situation of water in the territories occupied by Israel. There can be little doubt that there is much wrong and unacceptable with the availability of drinkable water and that those who are under the Israeli occupation are denied access to necessary water.
	The reports that have been made on the situation show that the average Palestinian uses some 50 litres of water daily, which, as I am sure the Minister is aware, is just half the amount recommended by the World Health Organisation, the average Israeli uses at least four times that amount, and sometimes uses more. Nearly 10% of Palestinian communities in the west bank—about 200,000 people—have no connection to any drinking water system at all. That should be of utmost concern to all Members of Parliament. Because of restrictions on movement, travelling to buy water is far from easy. Indeed in some circumstances, Palestinians pay up to 40% of their total income on water alone.
	The Joint Water Committee was established to administer the water arrangements under the Oslo accords. It is true that both the Israelis and the Palestinians have representation on that committee, but there is one snag: Israel has a veto. That veto has been used on new water drilling for Palestinians. Again, I make a comparison. That veto is frequently used when it comes to Palestinian water development, but it does not apply to the settlers or to those who are given every encouragement to live on land occupied by Israel, which is illegal under international law. Again, that is a matter that should concern us.
	Palestinians are frequently prevented from developing water infrastructure, particularly in area C in the occupied territories, and that is where Israel maintains exclusive control. The Emergency Water, Sanitation and Hygiene group—EWASH— of which I am sure the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) and the Minister are aware, is made up of some 30 humanitarian agencies and it has involved itself in every possible way in trying to assist Palestinians over the water situation. It does a first-class job and should be supported in every way.
	In its report, EWASH stated that between 1995 and 2011, Palestinians submitted 30 waste water treatment plant projects to the Joint Water Committee. How
	many were accepted? Was it 20, 15 or 10? No, it was four. Just four out of the 30 projects that the Palestinians put forward were accepted. In 2011, the Palestinian Water Authority submitted 38 projects to the Joint Water Committee, and out of that 38, how many were approved? Was it 30, 15, or 10? No, it was just three. As EWASH said, that is an approval rate of under 8%. Something is wrong and unacceptable. Pressure should be put on the Israelis over that situation.

Bob Russell: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. Does he agree that there is a legal and moral responsibility on every Government, particularly when they claim to be civilised and democratic, to treat all their citizens equally and fairly and, under international law, that also applies to civilians whose country has been occupied in defiance of the Geneva convention and UN resolutions. Even in apartheid South Africa, I do not recall the Government depriving anyone of water in the way that the Government of Israel have done against the Palestinians.

David Winnick: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that his words will be noted by the Minister, and perhaps even by the Israeli authorities; we shall see. I do not disagree with what he said.
	An Amnesty report said that Israeli settlers in the occupied areas use up to 20 times more water than Palestinian villages. What of the Gaza strip where Israel gave up control and prided itself that it no longer controlled the area? It says that things were now up to the people of Gaza. Now, this is a terrible statistic and it should shame us that we allow it to occur without constant pressure: some 90% of the water in Gaza is unfit for consumption. That figure comes from an Amnesty report. The continued Israeli military action prevents much of the equipment needed to maintain water treatment facilities from being imported.
	Let me mention that figure again: 90% of the water in that territory, Gaza, is unfit for consumption. During the operation in which Israel was involved, which is well known, water pipes were destroyed as a result of military action. In a debate in the Lords on 3 July last year, much concern was expressed over the situation in Gaza and rightly so. Lord Warner had been twice to Gaza and confirmed that 90% of Gaza’s water is not drinkable. What about the population of that area? Half of the population are under 18.
	My politics are far removed from those of Hamas. I have nothing in common with the politics of Hamas and no one would expect me to, as a left-leaning Labour Member of Parliament. My loathing of all forms of anti-Semitism and, indeed, racism, has been with me all my life—perhaps since before I was teenager—and will be with me until my dying day. I make my position absolutely clear, but that does not alter the fact that when injustice is involved, whoever is in control—whether that is in Israel or somewhere else in the world—it is our job to do as much as we can. Indeed, the previous debate on slavery demonstrated that we are not indifferent to what is happening in places where there is so much injustice.
	I have come back to this point time and again in this brief speech: there must be the utmost pressure on Israel. That pressure should obviously come from the British Government but it should also come from the
	United States, as the United States has far more ability to put pressure on Israel than we have. I know that the United States would say that it has encouraged talks between the two sides—I am pleased about that—and that it does not want to interfere too much as they want the talks to proceed. That is not much consolation, however, for those 2,000 people to whom I referred who were studying at the school. For all I know, the situation that Giles Fraser wrote about, in which there is no water at all, has not changed.
	It is simply not good enough for western Governments to refuse to raise the issue at every opportunity. I hope that will change and that western Governments—certainly ours—will raise the issue at the United Nations and do everything possible to bring a change.
	Let me conclude by quoting a Palestinian whose words are in the Amnesty report, “Thirsting for Justice.” These are his words. He is an ordinary Palestinian, not someone in politics or in national life in any way. He said:
	“Water is life. Without water we cannot live...it’s very difficult and expensive”
	to
	“bring water from far away…They make our life very difficult, to make us leave.”

Alan Duncan: I thank the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) for calling this debate and want to say at the outset that I agree with pretty much every word he said.
	We take access to clean water for granted in the UK. We rarely question where the water in our taps and sanitation systems comes from and we assume it will be there again the next day. We take it for granted that it has been treated effectively to make it safe for us to use. The same cannot be said of those living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories today. Water resources there are limited. A lack of rainfall in recent years, inadequate infrastructure and the inequitable distribution of water resources with Israel combine to make life very difficult.
	We cannot do anything about the naturally arid environment, but we can address the binding human and political constraints that perpetuate this problem. It is an injustice that in the 21st century Palestinians should still lack for something as basic as clean water and sanitation. Let me reassure the House that the UK and others are working to right this wrong.
	In the west bank, the story begins with the unfair and unequal allocation of resources. Palestinians, as the hon. Gentleman said, are limited to withdrawing 20% of the water from the aquifers underneath the west bank. Domestic usage, understandably, is prioritised, leaving little left over for the vital irrigation of agricultural land. Palestinians have to buy water from the Israeli national water company to make up any shortfall. In 2012, this cost about $37million. Illegal Israeli settlers, on the other hand, do not have to worry—they are free to consume, on average, four times as much water per capita as Palestinians in the west bank.
	Around 200,000 Palestinians in the west bank have no access to piped water at all. Half of Palestinian wells have dried up over the past 20 years. The only option, as the hon. Gentleman said, is to travel to buy tankered water—an option made all the more difficult by Israeli
	movement and access restrictions in place across much of the west bank. As a result, communities depending on tankered water pay up to 400% more for every single litre than those connected to the water network; and, of course, there is no guarantee of its quality.
	That is no minor inconvenience. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Emergency Water, Sanitation and Hygiene group, which co-ordinates efforts by around 30 donors and agencies to improve water and sanitation in the west bank and Gaza. It estimates that in isolated communities in the west bank, water consumption can be as low as 20 litres per person per day. Even worse than the hon. Gentleman’s description of that is the fact that that is the minimum amount recommended by the World Health Organisation in emergencies to sustain life.
	We are perhaps more accustomed to hearing about such precarious situations in Gaza. While the situation there has indeed been precarious for a long time, in recent months things have only got worse. Today, only 15% of Gaza’s population receive clean running water daily. The Gaza aquifer is set to become too polluted for use by 2016, and will be irreversibly damaged by 2020. Just two weeks ago, the failure of the main sewage pumping station in Gaza City led to 35,000 cubic metres of raw sewage flooding into the streets.
	There the problem is not so much access to water, but the ability to treat and distribute it effectively. Why? In part, it is because Israel continues to limit the import of construction and dual-use materials into Gaza that are necessary for building pipelines and pumping stations. The Gazan economy remains stifled, so there is no way in which it could pay for the infrastructure anyway. Recent actions by Egypt to close the smuggling tunnels have cut off a lifeline and served to make the situation even more difficult.
	In fact, water shortages in the west bank and Gaza are part of a much bigger problem. Even while the US-led middle east peace talks continue, life for ordinary Palestinians is getting worse. We have seen a spike in settlement announcements and demolition orders. Violence has erupted in east Jerusalem and the west bank and unemployment is on the rise.
	To make the case for peace, which this Government firmly believe in, we need to bring about real and tangible change on the ground, and to do so before it is too late. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made clear, there is no more urgent global priority in 2013 than the search for middle east peace. We see a two-state solution as the best way to meet the national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.
	So, first, we will continue to support efforts to achieve a negotiated peace. Working with our EU partners and with the US, we will encourage both Israelis and Palestinians to take the bold steps needed to reach an agreement. Hard work and difficult choices lie ahead, but we are ready to provide support in any way we can. In part, that will include support to the Kerry-led economic package to foster private sector led, sustainable economic growth in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

David Winnick: We all want to see a satisfactory settlement to the negotiations—but a settlement that would mean a sovereign Palestine, no less sovereign than Israel, and
	not some kind of statelet. But how can it be said that the Israelis are really genuinely committed when they are continuing to build settlements on land where, as we know, it is illegal under international law?

Alan Duncan: It is very clear in the policy of Her Majesty’s Government that we totally condemn the illegal construction of settlements. They are an impediment to peace, and of course are an essential component of the discussions which we hope will lead to a successful conclusion next year. In the meantime, to assist those discussions, we in the Department for International Development and the Government, working with the EU, are doing our best to underpin some economic progress. For instance, our plan aims to generate investment of $4 billion, increase Palestinian gross domestic product over the next three years, and reduce unemployment to single digits. Water is one of the sectors set to receive private and public sector support in this plan, and we will get behind that.
	We will continue to lobby Israel to make good on its promises made in September to improve access to water for Palestinians. This includes doubling the amount of water sold to the Gaza strip, and reviving the Joint Water Committee to adopt a truly co-operative approach to shared water resources. We know that Israel has made excellent progress in water technology in recent years. From drip-irrigation to desalination, perhaps no other country has contributed more breakthroughs in the area of water and food security than Israel. What an opportunity there is now to share this advance with its neighbours.
	Finally, we will do what DFID does best, which is to provide practical support for those most in need. We recently agreed to provide a further £10 million of support to the International Committee of the Red Cross to further its important work on human rights and humanitarian assistance. As part of this support, over 60,000 people in Gaza and the west bank will have improved access to clean water in 2013 alone.

David Winnick: rose—

Alan Duncan: I sense that the hon. Gentleman is itching to intervene again.

David Winnick: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene a second time. Ambassadors are sometimes called in when we feel that some injustice is taking place and it would be appropriate for the Minister or the Foreign Secretary to speak to the ambassador as a result. Could not the Israeli ambassador be called in to discuss some of what the Minister has said or what I have said? The Minister said that he agreed with every word I said. He is not likely to repeat that on any future parliamentary occasion, I imagine, but could not the ambassador be brought in and told of the concern felt by so many Members of Parliament on both sides of the House?

Alan Duncan: I and the House, I sense, share the hon. Gentleman’s sense of injustice, but I hope he will allow me to stay within the remit of DFID and not stray into the areas of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by making a judgment on the call that he has just made.
	I am pleased to be able to tell the House this evening that the UK is also embarking on a new programme of support to help provide water to irrigate agricultural
	land in area C of the west bank—a critical area to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The World Bank recently estimated that better irrigation in area C could boost the Palestinian economy by more than $700 million. To that end, as the DFID Minister, I have just agreed £1.8 million to restore agricultural wells serving nearly 1,000 farming families. We will be helping farmers to work more productively. For each £1 invested in rehabilitating groundwater wells, we can expect an additional 16 kg or 17 kg of vegetables to be produced annually.

Bob Russell: Does the Minister think it right that British taxpayers’ money should be used to do work made necessary by the behaviour of the Israeli Government?

Alan Duncan: I detect in the hon. Gentleman’s question the suggestion, which I think is slightly warped logic, that somehow our support for the Palestinian Authority subsidises the occupation. That is not the logic that we adopt. We believe that our support for the Palestinian Authority is underpinning an organisation that is a
	putative Government for a Palestinian state that we hope will be the result of the negotiations that are under way.
	It is our wish to build a viable Palestinian state and to protect those who are most vulnerable. On the specific topic of this debate, water shortages are a stark reminder of the harshness of Palestinian daily life. From the farmer in the west bank who cannot grow the same produce as his settler neighbour, to the family in Gaza having to wade through sewage to get home, the situation is unfair and untenable. Indeed, it is unjust. It is essential that peace negotiations on a two-state solution include discussions on shared water resources as part of a final status agreement, and it is essential that Israel makes good on its promises to improve access to water. In the meantime, Her Majesty’s Government and DFID will continue to support those who most need our help in any way we can.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.